A Socio-environmental Case for Skill in Outdoor Adventure
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the crisis of sustainability, this paper revisits understandings of human–environment relations established through skill-based outdoor activities that are used commonly among adventure recreation, education, and tourism. Reconsidering a predominant focus on risk and a persistent tension between technical and environmental knowledge, a case is made for skill as an important avenue for research related to participants’ environmental learning and engagement. Diverse qualitative and quantitative research literature concerning outdoor education, recreation specialization, place, and skilled performance are reviewed. The author argues that developing theoretical and practical approaches to outdoor adventure education, recreation, and tourism within a sustainability paradigm will require perspectives that position humanity as belonging within environments, and that skill provides an important avenue for doing so. Ultimately, research and practice will need to account for skill development and performance as shaping—for better or worse—participants’ socioecological engagement.
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 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) | 0.005 | 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 it