MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161343049 · doi:10.1177/1053825913498367

Conceptualizing Skill Within a Participatory Ecological Approach to Outdoor Adventure

2013· article· en· W2161343049 on OpenAlexaff
Philip M. Mullins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experiential Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOutdoor and Experiential Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutdoor educationAdventure educationAdventureRecreationSustainabilitySociologyEnvironmental educationWildernessCitizen journalismExperiential learningEcologyPsychologyPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To answer calls for an ecological approach to outdoor adventure that can respond to the crisis of sustainability, this paper suggests greater theoretical and empirical attention to skill and skill development as shaping participant interactions with and experiences of environments, landscapes, places, and inhabitants. The paper reviews calls for ecological approaches as well as phenomenological analyses of outdoor adventure. The paper then outlines a heuristic perspective that positions humanity as belonging within environments and highlights the performative and movement orientation of outdoor adventure. Ingold’s work is outlined as an informative ecological ontology and, integrating it with the literature reviewed, alternative conceptualizations of skill, activity, and outdoor adventure are provided. These understandings enable a first step in formulating and researching a participatory ecological approach to outdoor adventure education, recreation, and tourism.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.040
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.373
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experiential EducationSame topicOutdoor and Experiential EducationFrench-language works237,207