Interpretive guiding as balancing act : the perceptions of interpretive guides in promoting protection, learning and enjoyment in Jasper National Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
National Parks provide many different services; they are places for enjoyment and education as well as conservation and protection of the environment within its boundaries. The Canadian Rocky Mountain Park is a huge area made up of four national parks. These parks are known for their geological and ecological importance and are the most visited national parks in Canada. Encouraging visitation and protecting the parks’ nature is an ongoing balancing act. The Parks Canada mandate emphasize creating awareness and protection of ecological integrity, but when it comes to interpretation and guiding there is no holistic approach for how this should be done. The purpose of this research is to understand how individual guides that operate within Jasper National Park in Canada perceive their roles and expectations by employers and park visitors. The methods used to determine this aim were a series of interviews done of interpretive guides working in Jasper National Park. \n Jasper National Park was used as the study area for this project, guides that worked for private tour companies, as well as guides employed through Parks Canada, were interviewed about their roles and perceptions as interpretive guides. Findings of this study show that guides perceive their roles as facilitators of experiences by creating awareness and a sense of attachment to a place is an important part of their work. However, how guides choose to be stewards and how they present themselves in this role to their guests varies greatly among them. The results showed that guides do see their roles as facilitators of information and providing meaningful and entertaining experiences for their guests. However, there is no holistic approach to how these experiences are done. These results can act as a guideline to help create a more holistic approach to how interpretation can be done by users of national parks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".