MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085963142 · doi:10.1080/14729671003669289

The effects of age, gender and level of experience on motivation to sea kayak

2010· article· en· W2085963142 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy S. O’Connell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationPsychologyPreferenceOutdoor educationCreativityAge groupsSocial psychologyDemographyPedagogyEcologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although motivation to participate in outdoor leisure activities has been the frequent focus of research, there are no studies that examine motivation to sea kayak. The purposes of this study were two-fold: (1) to examine the differences in motivation to sea kayak based on the interaction of age and gender, and (2) to examine differences between paddlers of different levels of experience. Participants included 176 paddlers recruited from four sea kayak symposia. Participants were asked to complete an 84-item version of the Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales as well as to provide demographic information. Data were analysed using a series of analysis of variance tests. Results indicated that men of various age groups were motivated differently by temperature. Additionally, men were more motivated than women to sea kayak by using equipment, taking risks and teaching/leading others, while women were more motivated than men by creativity and enjoying nature. In terms of age differences, younger sea kayakers were more motivated by achievement/stimulation and escaping personal/social pressures than their counterparts in older age groups. More experienced sea kayakers were significantly more motivated by nostalgia and escaping family than were less experienced paddlers. These results may be of interest to outdoor recreation organizations providing sea kayak experiences as they shed initial light on why different groups of people are motivated to sea kayak. Programme delivery, marketing, and instructional techniques may be modified based on these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adventure Education & Outdoor LearningSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207