Visitors’ perceived impacts of interpretation on knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions at Miquelon Lake Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpretation in protected areas can help reach conservation goals and inspire a new generation of knowledgeable and dedicated park supporters. However, few research projects have examined this connection in a comprehensive manner. This 2011 study evaluated perceived knowledge, interest, appreciation, and advocacy impacts from interpretive programs at Miquelon Lake Provincial Park (MLPP), Alberta, Canada. Of 497 respondents, 19.7% attended an interpretive program. Among attendees, 89% rated the programs as excellent or very good, and most agreed that interpretation increased knowledge about nature (88%), interest in future programs (87%), and appreciation for MLPP (82%). Somewhat fewer but still a majority of attendees agreed that interpretation increased their desire to support AB Parks (71%), their awareness of environmental issues (69%), and their desire to help the environment (61%). Attendees (and nonattendees to a lesser extent) supported the role of interpretation in the park. The key constraints for not attending were lack of awareness, awkward timing, and being too busy. Park interpretation at MLPP appears to generate positive impacts related to the environment, regarding learning, awareness, appreciation, and a desire to help.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".