Exploring the significance of early life outdoor experiences: a scoping review of retrospective outdoor methods
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 programs have shown holistic health benefits for participants, with recent evidence indicating that these benefits can extend long after the conclusion of the program. The methods employed in retrospective studies exploring these outcomes are diverse, leading to many different approaches. Furthermore, only a few studies reference a theoretical framework guiding the authors’ approach. The primary objectives of this review were to (1) identify the purposes and outcomes from retrospective studies related to outdoor experiences, (2) summarize the methodological characteristics, and (3) compile reported methodological limitations. A Peer Reviewed Electronic Search Strategy (PRESS) was employed to search four prominent databases; Yielding 5206 candidate studies, from which 31 met the inclusion criteria. Data analysis revealed that there were four main study purposes and 22 unique outcomes. Retrospective, longitudinal, and follow-up were the three main methodological designs, with methods exhibiting significant variation and diversity. This review concludes with five suggestions for future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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