Spiritual Outcomes of Park Experience: A Synthesis of Recent Social Science Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In recent years there has been increasing empirical research on park experience and spirituality. In the vast majority of these studies, participants self-define spirituality. This paper summarizes and synthesizes this recent empirical research using the behavioral model of outdoor recreation as a framework (Figure 1) that allows for the inclusion of many factors involved in the relationship between park experience and spirituality. Due to space restrictions, only 16 of these studies are reviewed and synthesized in this paper. Antecedent conditions include personal history and current circumstances, attitude and motivation, sociodemographic characteristics, and spiritual tradition. Setting components include being in nature, being away (in a different environment), and place processes, such as place attachment and place meanings. Recreation components include activity, free time, solitude, and group experiences. The paper further explains how these conditions and components may lead to outcomes of spiritual experiences, spiritual well-being, and leisure-spiritual coping. The model presented takes into account the complexity of the park experience and spirituality relationship. This research synthesis is important as it may help park managers to better understand the processes that link park experience with spiritual outcomes, and to educate park visitors about these processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".