MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Les Usagers des parcours naturels de canyoning et de la structure artificielle Canyoning Park (France) : une approche socio-culturelle

2007· article· fr· W1983529477 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
André Suchet, Dominique Jorand

Bibliographic record

VenueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RésuméÀ partir d’une étude socio-culturelle réalisée par questionnaire (N = 417, S = 14) et complétée de plusieurs entretiens semi directifs, le présent article étudie les usagers des sites naturels de canyoning et ceux de la première structure artificielle consacrée à l’activité : Canyoning Park. Reproduisant en partie les oppositions traditionnelles à l’espace des sports, les résultats mettent en évidence quatre principaux groupes d’usagers et une segmentation forte entre la fréquentation des sites naturels et celle de la structure artificielle.L’article discute notamment les rapports au corps des pratiquants, leur idée de la nature et la place du mécanisme de distinction dans l’activité.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.340 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoisir et Société / Society and LeisureSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207