Sometimes even a single feather is enough to fly: a hermeneutic journey through rites of passage in outdoor education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rite of passage is a term that is used widely and uncritically in the field of outdoor education. This hermeneutic research project explores how a third-generation Canadian outdoor educator explores how rites of passage are understood in outdoor education. On this hermeneutic journey I set out to provide a more complex understanding of rites of passage in outdoor education. In exploring the literature of rites of passage in outdoor education, I noticed that there is a lack of discussion on non-Indigenous practitioners’ cultural heritage and how to address the desire many practitioners have for ritual. I used Stephen Jenkinson’s texts as a foundation for the hermeneutic conversations that I had with rites of passage in outdoor education. The research journey shifted from focusing on rites of passage to how outdoor educators could build a ritual skillset. I propose five propositions of ritual that may help practitioners develop their own ritual sensibility.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".