Social media as a learning resource for outdoor enthusiasts: a Canadian perspective
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 enthusiasts can acquire knowledge and skills about their activities in different ways, one of these being social media. Nonetheless, there is limited scientific literature that allows us to understand how outdoor enthusiasts currently use social media to learn about their activities. This exploratory research, based on a mixed method design, aims to better understand how Canadian outdoor enthusiasts (COE) use social media to learn about their outdoor activities. This study examined how 368 COE use social media to learn about their activities. Chi-square tests and t-tests were applied to analyze differences between participants’ answers and individual characteristics. Results suggest that COE do indeed use social media to learn about their activities. Qualitative data originating from the same survey suggests that COE also use social media to get ideas and inspiration as well as to connect with other outdoor enthusiasts.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it