The decision making journey of parents to enroll their teen in an adventure therapy program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many parents choose to send their children to adventure therapy programs for the potential benefits these programs provide. Research has shown that the potential benefits of adventure therapy programs include changes related to enhanced self-concept, improved social skills, and decreased substance abuse (Gass, Gillis, & Russell, 2012), however little research has been done on whether parents choose AT programs for these same reasons. Using a theoretical framework of mindful inquiry this study analyzes ten interviews, of parents who had teenagers enrolled in an adventure therapy program, to understand parental expectations and perceptions of the program, and to comprehend why parents chose this kind of program for their children. Thematic analysis was utilized for the data incorporating the six stage model of Braun and Clark (2006), including: 1. Familiarizing yourself with your data 2. Generating initial codes 3. Searching for themes 4. Reviewing themes 5. Defining and naming themes 6. Producing the report. The parents interviewed chose adventure therapy for various reasons including difficulty in the home situation, lack of available support within the community, the positive challenge of a new environment, separation from their teen, the opportunity for personal growth, and the hope of a different future. Implications for strengthening family relationships, the impacts on society, and the development of adventure therapy programming are discussed in relation to the findings. Parent interviews took place at a residential therapeutic wilderness camp for youth located on Vancouver Island, Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".