Understanding older adults’ participation in outdoor adventure activities: a scoping review
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
Outdoor adventure activities are increasingly popular among older adults. We conducted a scoping review to examine trends in the scholarly literature on this topic. Several interdisciplinary databases were searched, and studies were independently screened for eligibility during two rounds of review (title and abstract, and full text). Our review included 34 peer-reviewed articles with the full text available in English that substantially described outdoor adventure programming for older adults, and/or older adults’ experiences of, or attitudes towards outdoor adventure activities. Results of this scoping review suggest that participation in outdoor adventure activities can contribute significantly to the wellbeing of older adults. However, due to strict alignment to the ideals of successful aging present in many articles, the potential for an ‘authentic aging’ lens to explore the diverse experiences of aging is discussed. Further research should focus on recruiting more diverse participants and attempt to uncover potential barriers and facilitators (physical, economic, geographic, etc.) to participation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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