Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A number of studies have addressed outdoor and adventure programs over the past 50 years. Despite empirical evidence that demonstrates the personal benefits of group interventions, research investigating the mechanisms responsible for these effects is scarce. This is particularly so for groups in natural outdoor and adventure settings. There is therefore a need to improve our understanding of the processes involved. This research focused on personal and interpersonal processes that occurred during an outdoor group expedition. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 23 subjects aged between 17 and 21 who had participated in an 18-day expedition. The data are examined through a theoretical framework known as “helping factors” often used when studying benefits of a group intervention. Findings The results show that participation in the program promoted self-understanding, interpersonal learning, socializing techniques, and cohesion. Altruism, imitative behavior, universality, and imparting information were also important. As for existential factors, corrective recapitulation of the family, catharsis, and hope, these were rarely mentioned if not absent. Applications The results give a better understanding of the helping factors in such programs and of their potential role in the group process, as well as their application in social work practice.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".