Recreation Specialization and Site Choice Among Vehicle-Based Campers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recreation specialization theory predicts that individuals will differ in their physical, management, and social setting preferences. Few studies, however, support the hypothesis that individuals choose recreation settings consistent with their level of specialization. This study examined the association between behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions of specialization and site choice among vehicle-based campers in Alberta, Canada. Data were collected using on-site interviews and a mail survey. Campers at unmanaged sites (no facilities and services) had higher centrality scores, had greater familiarity with the site and more experience with unmanaged sites, and a higher level of bush skill than campers at managed sites. An ordered multinomial logit model showed that the more familiar individuals were with the site and campground type, the higher the level of bush skill, and the more important and central camping was in an individual's life, the greater the probability of choosing a campground type that required a higher degree of self-reliance and decreased dependence on facilities and services. Higher household income increased the probability of camping at managed sites, suggesting that income might limit the expression of specialization by constraining choice to affordable options.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".