Investigating the human-nature relationships of wilderness leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored how wilderness leaders view wilderness and understand their relationship with wilderness. The term wilderness leader denotes outdoor educators and guides who lead trips in backcountry wilderness areas. Guided by a narrative design, in-depth interviews were conducted with five Canadian individuals who have been leading multi-day wilderness trips for five years or more. During the interviews, leaders were asked to describe their experiences in wilderness, their relationships with nature, and explore their role as wilderness leaders. \nFive main themes emerged through the interview process. These themes included the leaders' defintions of wilderness, stories of time spent in wilderness and why they were drawn to wilderness in the first place, how they understood their relationships with nature, their notions of wilderness ethic, and how they see their roles as wilderness leaders. The underlying connecting theme of this research was that all the leaders felt strongly about their relationship with nature. Rooted in respect for nature, and a perspective of being a part of nature, they wanted to ensure that they travelled in wilderness in a way that was indicative of that respect. \nThis study supports environmental education research that calls for strong emotional connections to the natural world. This study also corroborates the critique that many outdoor education and wilderness programs lead participants to view wilderness and civilization as two separate entities. This study therefore advocates the need for wilderness leaders to continue to think critically about wilderness and be given opportunities to reflect and be challenged on their ideas of wilderness.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".