MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415450545 · doi:10.1016/j.jort.2025.100892

Exploring motivations of winter backcountry recreationists in support of avalanche risk communication

2025· article· en· W4415450545 on OpenAlexaff
Anneliese Neweduk, Pascal Haegeli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersWSL-Institut für Schnee- und Lawinenforschung SLF
KeywordsRecreationPoison controlSample (material)Human factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSuicide preventionVisitor patternOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following best practices from risk communication research, there are growing efforts to better understand avalanche forecast users and find opportunities to improve the effectiveness of avalanche safety information products and services. While motivations are a well-established topic in the recreation literature, the avalanche safety community has so far only paid limited attention to this dimension of their target community. The objective of this study is to examine 1) the importance of different motivations related to the types of experiences recreationists seek in the winter backcountry, 2) whether we can identify distinct motivation profiles among our sample of backcountry recreationists, and 3) how these motivations relate to other measures of backcountry and avalanche safety practices such as preferred backcountry terrain, level of formal avalanche safety training, and primary winter backcountry activity. Drawing from the avalanche forecast research panels of the Euregio and Swiss Avalanche Warning Services, we examined patterns in 15 motivation items among 2121 European winter backcountry recreationists. Overall, we found a clear hierarchy of motivations from least to most important. While the motivations vary on a continuum, we identified six clusters with distinct motivation patterns using a k-means approach: the Overall Keeners, Less Enthusiastic, Serenity Seekers , Skills Focused, Summit Focused, and Challenge & Risk Minded . Our analyses of the relationships between motivations, terrain preferences, avalanche safety training level, and primary winter backcountry activity show the expected patterns but also highlight the wide range of motivational patterns that exist across the community and warrant a more comprehensive characterization beyond the traditional focus on backcountry activity and avalanche safety training level. Our results provide initial practical insights into how knowledge of recreationists’ motivations and preferences can be leveraged to design more targeted avalanche safety products and services intended to resonate better with the motivations, needs, and capabilities of different audiences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Outdoor Recreation and TourismSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207