‘Flow’ and satisfaction of Michigan youth waterfowl hunters: Implications for hunter retention
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
A consistent decrease in the number of individuals taking up recreational hunting in North America is cause for concern by game management agencies. As older hunters retire from hunting, young hunters provide a natural segue for future hunting populations. Measures of ‘flow’ and satisfaction with hunting experiences provide valuable information about youth and the potential for retention. Flow theory and satisfaction were used to: (a) characterize the extent to which participation in recreational hunting activities can result in ‘flow’ experiences; (b) explore how ‘flow’ and satisfaction are related to youth waterfowl hunting experiences; and (c) examine intentions to continue hunting. Interest in the hunt, happiness, and intrinsic motivation were important factors in youth’s waterfowl hunting experience. Ninety-seven percent of respondents indicated the intention to continue waterfowl hunting in the future, therefore providing support for special hunting experiences where mentor–mentee relationships are central to satisfaction and ‘flow’ during the hunt.
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) | 0.000 | 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