An interpretive study of forest education and nature interpretation as public cultural contents: Focusing on Freeman Tilden's concept of ‘interpretation’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is an interpretive research on the philosophical orientation of forest education, a public cultural content utilizing forest resources. Forest education professionals such as ‘forest interpreters’, ‘early childhood forest guides’, and ‘forest trail and mountain guides’ are trained to provide public cultural content services that mediate between citizens and nature. This practice originated in the historical context of nature preservation and management through state-led national parks, which began in the West, particularly in the United States. Forest education in Korea, such as forest interpretation, is equivalent to ‘nature interpretation’ in the West. The various literatures produced on nature interpretation have had a significant impact on Korean forest education policy, and this study aims to identify the ideological roots of nature interpretation, which have been largely unexplored. The study first approached nature interpretation activities by collecting examples from Europe, Northern Europe, and Canada, confirming that nature preservation is a common goal and purpose. Through a historical approach, the researchers examined the preservationism that influenced the introduction of nature interpretation in the West and realized that the philosophical origin of nature interpretation is the idea of combining nature preservation and spirituality. To understand nature interpretation, we examine Freeman Tilden's concept of interpretation, which continued this early preservationist spirit but constructively transformed it and shaped nature interpretation today. The study explored the core concept of ‘the Thing Itself’ in the context of Romantic texts such as those by Novalis and Carl von Linné, centering on Kant's influence on Romanticism. Most importantly, the researchers interpreted Tilden's concept of ‘interpretation’ as a theory of the sublime to explore the philosophical roots of nature interpretation. Through this study, it is argued that the essential meaning of the field of nature interpretation is the unity of nature and human beings and the love of nature through personal experience and recognition of the sublime in nature.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".