“There is Always Progress to Be Made”: Reflective Narratives on Outdoor Therapeutic Recreation for Mental Health Support
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
Due to the marginalizing effects of mental illness, the stories of individuals in early recovery from various mental health diagnoses are often invalidated. To address this concern, complementary modalities (e.g., massage therapy, naturopathy, arts-based therapy, horticulture therapy) have emerged alongside the fields of therapeutic recreation, psychotherapy, and outdoor-based practices. Less is known about how social/community approaches to practice are used within in-patient care settings to complement more traditional modalities (i.e., cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), talk-based therapy, trauma exposure therapy, pharmaceutical medication etc.). The current research project aimed to understand individuals’ experiences and reflections of engaging in an outdoor experiential workshop while seeking in-patient care for post-traumatic stress disorder and substance-use disorder. Narrative inquiry was the methodological approach we used to illuminate the voice in the cracks (Jackson & Mazzei, 2005), voices that are often left out of dominant medical discourses, to be heard. Focus groups and in-depth semi-structured narrative life-experience interviews were used to story individuals’ reflections of early recovery while participating in an outdoor experiential workshop beyond the conventional boundaries and structures of medicine-focused in-patient care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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