MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097835397 · doi:10.4324/9780203983584

Outdoor Recreation Management

2005· book· en· W2097835397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Jenkins, John J. Pigram

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationBusinessEnvironmental planningGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now widely recognized that recreation is as important as work. This revealing book analyzes leisure and outdoor recreation in terms of both their management and their wider importance to society. Specifically, it: clarifies the link between leisure, recreation, tourism and resource management reviews contemporary outdoor recreation management and concepts critically examines approaches to outdoor recreation planning and management in diverse recreational settings considers the future of outdoor recreation and the potential influences of economic, social, political and technological developments. Wide-ranging and topical, it considers such issues as motivation and choice, provision for people with special needs, the impact of outdoor recreation on the environment, and outdoor recreation in both urban and rural contexts. This comprehensively revised second edition has many sections rewritten and expanded to reflect contemporary development in leisure and outdoor recreation management in countries such as Australia, Canada, the UK, the US and New Zealand. With an extensive bibliography of more than 500 references and including further reading sections and review questions, it is an essential student purchase and one of the most comprehensive and international accounts of outdoor recreation management available.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.022

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations194
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207