Confronting and (Re)constructing “Conquest Culture” in Outdoor Adventure: A Critical Analysis of #Microadventure Content on Facebook and Instagram
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Underpinned by Romantic wilderness ideals and American settler colonialism, recurring themes of “conquest culture” in outdoor adventure—social privilege, individualism, and exploitation—are carried out on social media. This study explores how an emerging topic, microadventures, may reinforce or resist these dominant discourses in outdoor adventure. Facebook and Instagram posts tagged “#microadventure” were collected and analyzed using a qualitative critical social media content analysis informed by Hall’s (1973) Theory of Encoding and Decoding. We found that half of the posts reinforced conquest culture, while the other half resisted. The discussion of our findings, framed as a critique of neoliberalism, seeks to interrogate, from a U.S. perspective, how conquest culture is perpetuated by representations of adventure across the global social media landscape. Our findings suggest the need to deconstruct market-driven, colonial tendencies in outdoor social media by (1) confronting dominant conquest discourses and (2) (re)constructing neoliberal tendencies in the outdoor field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".