A User Study of Experimental Maps for Outdoor Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents results from a user study on experimental maps created for outdoor activities and demonstrates methods suitable for analyzing the map survey data. The first goal of the study was to find out to what degree the experimental maps created for the study satisfy the needs of map users in general. The second was a detailed exploration of opinions on the different map types to look for trends related to age, frequency of map use, or amount of time spent in nature. A third goal was to gauge interest and willingness to pay for experimental maps as printed products. In addition, the article demonstrates how cross-tabulation and correspondence analysis can be used to conduct versatile quantitative analysis and interpret map survey data. The survey results suggest that the conventional topographic-map-like products for outdoor activities currently offered by map publishers should be supplemented by new kinds of maps to attract and educate digital natives to become active map users. At the same time, the quality of information and representation of terrain accessibility on maps for outdoor activities must not be compromised simply to fulfil the broad-based needs of map users.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".