Climbers' Perceptions Toward Sustainable Bouldering at the Niagara Glen Nature Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there are a variety of concerns about the future of bouldering, a form of rock \nclimbing, a t the Niagara Glen Nature Reserve near Niagara Falls, Ontario due to environmental \nimpacts at the site. The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions ofbouldering \nparticipants toward sustainable bouldering practices at the Niagara Glen. The methodological \nframework for this study was based on action research, which attempts to solve specific problems \nthrough having people in a community study, discuss, and act on those problems. Five separate \nfocus group interviews elicited data from nineteen men and seven women, while there were \ntwenty one men and ten women observed through participant observations at the Niagara Glen. \nAnalysis was conducted through coding processes where data were compared repeatedly and then \norganized into themes. From the open coding process, two main themes were identified and \ninterpreted as 1) Barriers to Sustainable Bouldering at the Niagara Glen Nature Reserve, and 2) \nEnvironmental and Social Role and Responsibility ofBoulde r ing Participants at the Niagara \nGlen. The implications of the findings include a variety of recommendations for the bouldering \ncommunity and the Niagara Parks Commission to consider for future collaborative planning. \nSome of these recommendations include more open communication between all stakeholders at \nthe Glen, additional leadership from local climbing access coalitions and the Niagara Parks \nCommission, and greater implementation of minimum impact practices from the bouldering \ncommunity. Additionally, these implications are discussed through a three-part framework based \non a conceptual intersection of sense of place, community empowerment, and sustainable \nrecreational use as a way to potentially unify the bouldering community's voice and vision \ntoward sustainable practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".