A cross-cultural exploration of ‘wild’ in wilderness therapy: Canada, Norway and Australia
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
This paper addresses pluralistic understandings of wilderness in the context of wilderness therapy (WT). The term wilderness perpetuates a modern worldview of place that beyond ‘civilisation’ exists an environment defined by risk, fear and an unpredictable nature. WT utilises outdoor travel and living practices during therapeutic intervention and health promotion although empirical justification for its use of wilderness for therapy is not yet established. This paper provides three cultural perspectives on wild places in relation to WT. These national perspectives are informed by local practices, historical and societal understandings of wilderness and supported by related literature from Canada, Norway and Australia. The authors (1) illustrate a number of contemporary western assumptions about wilderness enshrined in the WT and outdoor adventure literature, (2) cautiously propose core purposes for using wild places for therapy and (3) encourage further development of WT practice and research within national, regional and even across organisational contexts.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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