MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000650877 · doi:10.1179/175355207x404197

The Consequences of Allowing Unrestricted Tourist Access at an Aboriginal Site in a Fragile Environment: the Erosive Effect of Trampling

2007· article· en· W2000650877 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alana Rossi, REsmee Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation and Management of Archaeological Sites · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of QueenslandUniversity of LiverpoolYork University
KeywordsCaveTramplingTourismArchaeologyRock artGeographyWeatheringFeature (linguistics)GeologyPaleontologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mulka's Cave is a profusely decorated Aboriginal rock art site located near Wave Rock, a heavily-promoted granite weathering feature outside Hyden, a small town in the south-west of Western Australia. Thousands of tourists visit Wave Rock and Mulka's Cave each year. This level of visitation is severely impacting the ground surface both within and without the cave. Comparison of pictures of the cave mouth taken over the last fifty years shows that about one metre of the deposits within the cave has disappeared during that period. We attribute this erosion to trampling. We describe the measures recently taken to reduce the impact of tourists' feet on Mulka's Cave. It is hoped that the new infrastructure will prevent further environmental degradation. We briefly address the vexed question of whether tourists should be allowed unrestricted access to archaeological sites in fragile environments, given the damage they can inflict on them unintentionally and unwittingly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation and Management of Archaeological SitesSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207