MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969637266 · doi:10.1080/01490400903430897

Nature-Based Recreation and Spirituality: A Complex Relationship

2009· article· en· W1969637266 on OpenAlex
Paul Heintzman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationSpiritualitySolitudePsychologySocial psychologyCoping (psychology)Spiritual developmentFacilitationAntecedent (behavioral psychology)SociologyPsychotherapistPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines empirical studies and theoretical models that explain the complex relationship between nature-based recreation and spirituality. Antecedent conditions include personal history, current circumstances, attitude, motivation, socio-demographic characteristics, and spiritual tradition. Setting components include being in nature, being away to a different environment, and place processes. Recreation components include activity, free time, solitude, group experiences, and facilitation. The article further explains how these conditions and components may lead to outcomes of spiritual experiences, spiritual well-being, and leisure-spiritual coping. Previous models have not taken into account the complexity of the nature-based recreation and spirituality relationship. Recommendations are made for future research and model development.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it