Adventure and the Gender Gap: Acknowledging Diversity of Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, descriptions of adventure recreation have tended to incorporate a limited range of physically isolated and challenging activities (Attarian, 1991; Ewert, 1986). More recently, the concept of adventure has been used quite broadly within the leisure field (e.g. the 'adventure' of visiting nature; tourist promotions of 'adventurous' fun), but popular media portrayals of adventure continue to promote the extreme and remote. While these latter risk-laden portrayals reflect the experiences of a few, it is the premise of the authors that a broader perception and experience of adventure can be found in more everyday events and activities. In support of recent feminist research (Collins, 2000; Humberstone, 2000), this paper describes women's perceptions and experiences of adventure and suggests that adventure recreation has wider parameters than previously acknowledged. Based on results of semi-structured in-depth interviews with eighty two women participants in adventure activities (e.g. solo travel, white water kayaking), the findings show that women struggle to identify with popular media presentations of adventure, but they do experience individual adventure in multiple ways. Through personal challenges and newness, adventure can be experienced without the requisite of extreme physical challenge or exclusive remoteness. Subsequently, we suggest that broader social and professional meanings of adventure need to be acknowledged, allowing people to identify with adventure and the benefits to be gained from adventure recreation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".