An environmental scan of outdoor orientation programs at universities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As of 2012, colleges and universities in the United States had established 191 outdoor orientation \nprograms (OOPs) and this was increasing at the rate of approximately 10 per year. The situation \nin Canada has been strikingly different. Little information is available regarding OOPs at \nuniversities in Canada and this is true for information available online and in the literature. This \nstudy used an environmental scanning (ES) approach to identify information related to OOPs at \nuniversities in Canada. During the 2015-2016 academic year, approximately 20% (n=21) of the \nuniversities in Canada used OOPs, however only 573 students were participating in Canadian \nOOPs (COOPs) during the 2017-2018 academic year. The common objectives of COOPs were \nto: (1) facilitate peer relationships and bonding; (2) connect students to place; and (3) promote \nstudent development. The COOPs described in this study represent an underutilized opportunity \nfor a holistic approach to student development and orientation at universities in 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".