We Are Wilderness Explorers: A Review of Outdoor Education in Canada
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
Background: Outdoor education (OE) should be understood in place, time, and culture because it is not a universal teaching approach. We currently know little about what constitutes the “Canadian ways” of doing OE or what students gain from the experience. Purpose: Our goal was to (a) identify the underlying factors guiding OE programs in Canada and (b) describe the learning outcomes and psychosocial benefits of engaging in OE from the students’ perspective. Methodology/Approach: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies that examined OE in Canada. We searched published studies from electronic databases (1980-2018). We used meta-ethnography to synthesize the findings. Findings/Conclusions: We reviewed 21 studies reporting on the experiences of 508 students. Using thematic analysis, we identified eight themes highlighting process, goals, and learning outcomes. We developed a model that describes the common teaching components, learning process, and short-term outcomes for OE in Canada. Implications: Our results represent the first study to synthesize OE published research in Canada, which help form a unified voice and a distinctive national identity for OE in Canada. Our results serve as a catalyst for educators to share ideas, practices, and learning goals.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it