Wayfinding and Spatial Reorientation by Nova Scotia Deer Hunters
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
How do backcountry travelers respond to losing their way? To address this question, deer hunters were surveyed in regard to their attitudes toward various methods of recovering one’s spatial orientation. Ratings of the likelihood of adopting each of nine reorientation strategies—or advice on what to do on becoming “lost” in the woods—revealed that “climbing a tree or hill for a better view” was rated highest among alternatives. One strategy, “try to travel a straight line out of the woods,” was positively correlated with respondents’ self-reports of having been lost while hunting. Principal components analysis of reorientation strategies yielded four components, labeled “skill based” (e.g., using environmental cues to travel a straight line), “downhill” (e.g., following a stream), “perception based” (improving visual access), and “wandering” (e.g., traveling the path of least resistance). The importance of spatial reorientation to general wayfinding skill was discussed.
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) | 0.004 | 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