MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1483730688

Ski and Snowboard Law in Colorado and British Columbia: Fair Waiver of Unconscionable Terms?

2007· article· en· W1483730688 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Theodore H. Kuyper

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaiverUnconscionabilityLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

contest. 8 It was not until 1980, and Jake Burton's introduction of the first snowboard featuring a P-tex base, 9 that snowboarding developed the potential to become the recreational powerhouse activity that it is today.10 During 2004, alpine skiers paid over 57 million visits to ski areas in the United States.11 Despite this vast amount of visitors, the most recent statistics suggest that the annual number of snowboarders has surpassed that of alpine skiers.12 Given the growth of both sports and the sheer standing up in her sled.Id.The rest of the story has become the centerpiece of snowboarding folklore.Id.As Poppen explains, he went into his garage and found a pair of children's snow skis.Id.He screwed them together, attached dowels to act as foot stops, and attached a rope to the nose for the rider to hold in order to stabilize the snurfer.Id.While it is noteworthy that the snurfer was not technically a snowboard because it did not have bindings, it was nevertheless a crucial step in the conception and creation of the modern-day snowboard.Id.Indeed, many winter enthusiasts not only rode the snurfer prototype, but also initiated design and production of their own boards to compensate for its deficiencies.Id.Most notably, these enthusiasts included Jake Burton, the founder of the snowboard equipment manufacturing Burton Snowboards Inc., and Demetrije Milovich of the former Winterstock Company.Id.It was Jake Burton who created the first actual snowboard.Id.His prototype was similar to the snurfer but with the fundamental addition of bindings to secure the rider's feet to the board.Voje, supra note 6.By securing their feet to the snowboard, riders were able to maintain better control which facilitated a dramatic increase in the skill level of all riders.See id.8. Crane, supra note 7. Modern competitive snowboarding started with a small contest held during April of 1981 at Ski Cooper in Leadville, Colorado.Id. 9. Voje, supra note 6.The word "base" used with regard to skis and snowboards refers to the part of the equipment that is intended to come into contact with the snow.Colloquially, this might be referred to as the "bottom" of the ski or snowboard.The word "P-tex" carries dual meanings.First, P-tex is an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, a dense and abrasion-resistant thermoplastic with low friction properties which is used as the base for skis and snowboards.P-tex is also of one of three major brand names in the industry which makes, markets, and sells the actual P-tex product.Snowboard Bases/Ski Bases, http://www.custom-shop.com/pages/p-tex.htm(last visited Dec. 27, 2006).10. Joshua D. Hecht, Comment, Snowboarding Liability: Past, Present and Future, 15 MARQ.SPORTS L. REV.249 (2004).The path to the current popularity of the sport, however, was not without tribulation.Initially, ski resorts did not even allow snowboarding because they felt that snowboarders were nothing more than rebels, and the resorts feared that their presence on the mountain would necessarily hurt the ski industry.Id. at 250.Additionally, there was a perception that snowboards themselves made the terrain unsuitable for skiing and ruined the slopes.Id. NATIONAL SKI AREAS ASSOCIATION, Downhill SkiParticipation 1985-2004, http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/0506/nsga-ski-part-2004.pdf(last visited Oct. 21,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueOpen Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis)Same topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207