MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234264205 · doi:10.24124/2012/bpgub877

Journey through the wilds: An autoethnography of the Camp Trapping experience.

2012· dissertation· en· W4234264205 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alain Huggett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCanadian HeritageLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoethnographySituatedContext (archaeology)SociologyPublic relationsGender studiesPedagogySocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using an autoethnographic method the author explores key issues in his experience working at Camp Trapping, a wilderness based group care programme for male young offenders situated in central British Columbia. Personal experiences, as well as interview quotes from staff members and adult graduates of the programme, are used to highlight social, political and practice aspects of working in such a setting. Key concepts reflected upon are the presence or absence of continual compassionate care, factors associated with youth crime, masculinity, wilderness programming, group care settings, and the punitive turn in social welfare and corrections approaches in Canada. These concepts are looked at in a broad social context as well as how programme delivery is affected on a personal level. The author asserts that Camp Trapping provides marginalized youth a unique experience that encourages pro-social personal development. The Camp Trapping experience also contributes to the author's personal and professional development. --P. ii.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArt Therapy and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→