Wild, man-made or a bit of both? An ethical survey on the future development of the area around Seljalandsfoss waterfall
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The need of roads, parking lots, service centres and other man made structures seems to be increasing as numbers of visitors at touristic sites around Iceland increase, such as at the Seljalandsfoss waterfall. Measures need to be taken to accommodate those people visiting the site, but man-made structures that come along with increasing numbers of visitors could change the face of the site as well as the aesthetic experience of those present at the site. In this dissertation an effort is made to assess the plans of the municipality at the site on the base of knowledge about Icelandic landscapes, nature views throughout Icelandic history and nature use and protection in Iceland. Oppositional views as that of nature protection vs. Nature utility and the discussions and debates evolving around such views, have been dominant since the beginning of industrialisation for more than a century in Iceland, and seem to intensify. It seems vital to look beyond such dualisms and try to find insights, that incorporate more than only few extreme viewpoints. The municipal plans at the Seljalandsfoss waterfall account for the relocation of a new road, addition of parking lots and a service centre at the site, which will not only have negative affect on the view of the waterfall at the site itself, but also when approaching the site from the ring road. Although no decision has been made regarding such plans at the waterfall, as land owners opinions seem to differ regarding the actions that should be taken at the site, those in charge of these decisions should think long and hard what consequences the actions would have and how these actions would make the land appear, and thus affect the experience of those visiting the site. About 80 percent of the tourists visiting Iceland come for its wild nature. With decreasing wilderness and an increase of man made structures at such sites, people might lose the sense of wonder and the connection to such natural environments. In a world where man-made structures are increasing and people feel an increasing need to search out wild nature, the preservation of natural environments seem vital to account for a kind of experience, which brings us in touch with our surrounding and ourselves. Especially in Iceland, where much of the landscape is still untouched by man compared to other places around the globe, people should think twice before planting a building or road in the middle of an untouched landscape, not only for natures sake, but also for the sake of the one who perceives it. In the end, solutions will need to be found. It should be possible to appease both sides, the side of preserving wilderness and that of utilizing it, as for tourism, without loosing the charm of the site. In the last part of my paper I make suggestions to incorporate the these two different approaches without having to separate them.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».