A call for sustainability education in post‐secondary outdoor recreation programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the link between sustainability education and outdoor education and to encourage outdoor recreation educators to evaluate their programs with regard to sustainability and sustainable living. Design/methodology/approach This paper starts by presenting several factors that currently hinder the delivery of sustainability education in outdoor recreation training programs. It then turns to a presentation of Lefebvre's sustainability education framework, which offers a helpful structure for integrating sustainability education into outdoor recreation academic curricula. Findings Although there are programs that have successfully implemented sustainability training into their curricula, there are many factors that serve to hinder the education of outdoor recreation students in the philosophy and techniques of sustainability and sustainable living. No doubt these impediments pose critical challenges to those offering academic training programs. These challenges must be identified, met and overcome if the profession is to contribute, as it should, not only to local, national and global sustainable outdoor recreation, but also to sustainable living in general. Originality/value It is hoped that this paper will encourage educators of post‐secondary outdoor recreation to better equip their students to introduce and teach others with respect to sustainable living values and practices.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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".