Exploring post-course outcomes of an undergraduate tourism field trip to the Antarctic Peninsula
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
ABSTRACT A small number of educational programmes for university students include field experience in Antarctica. These programmes contain a range of educational objectives, approaches and academic assessment related to the field component and the intended on-site learning for students. However, it is possible that the on-site experiences of students in these programmes have an influence on later decisions and behaviour beyond the course itself in the years following participation. This paper investigates the possibility of such influence for students who participated in ship-based tourism field trips to the Antarctic Peninsula and adjacent locations (South Georgia, the Falkland Islands, and South Shetland Islands) and explores whether students link their participation to particular post-course outcomes. It examines how participants report being affected by a trip to the Antarctic Peninsula, particularly in terms of later decisions regarding learning, professional lives, and environmental behaviour. Influences noted by respondents include effects on choices made in relation to academic pursuits and career paths, as well as development of their environmental values through increased awareness of tourism impacts, Antarctic region sustainability issues, and global issues such as climate change.
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) | 0.001 | 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