Calling in Outdoor Education to Create Anti-Colonial Change in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary Outdoor Education (OE) has been criticized for continuing to operate in ways that uphold settler colonialism, including having taken minimal action in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action (2015b). Despite their advantageous positioning, the voices of organizational leadership in OE have been observed to largely be absent from the anti-colonial conversation. This study strives to contribute to anti-colonial change in OE through calling in three executives representing leadership from national-level, Canadian OE organizations to explore the question: How can OE leadership mobilize their organizations towards meaningful anti-colonial change, specifically in regards to the TRC’s Calls to Action (2015b)? Guided by a narrative methodology informed by anti-colonial theory and critical constructivism, two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted. Results highlighted ongoing inaction characterized by unintentional and intentional exemption, sustained by colonial cycles of unawareness, innocence, and ignorance. Several current and future anti-colonial pathways were identified, which target evolving OE and its organizations into spaces that are safe, welcoming, and belonging for Indigenous peoples. An anti-colonial framework for settler OE practitioners and organizations is also proposed. Future research is encouraged to explore Indigenous perspectives of OE as safe, welcoming, and belonging spaces; improving awareness, implication, and accountability throughout the field; and, identifying avenues to bring the field together in anti-colonial action.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".