MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059606471 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2002.9651296

Estimating day use social carrying capacity in Yosemite national park

2002· article· en· W2059606471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert E. Manning, William Valliere, Benjamin Wang, Steven R. Lawson, Peter Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisitor patternRecreationNational parkCarrying capacityGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceArchaeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating Day Use Social Carrying Capacity in Yosemite National Park Carrying capacity has been a long‐standing issue in management of parks and outdoor recreation. Contemporary carrying capacity frameworks rely on formulation of indicators and standards of quality of the recreation experience to define and manage carrying capacity. This paper describes a program of research to support application of carrying capacity to Yosemite Valley, the scenic heart of Yosemite National Park, USA. Research included (1) a series of visitor surveys at selected sites within Yosemite Valley to identify indicators and standards of quality, (2) development of computer simulation models of visitor use at study sites to estimate maximum daily use levels without violating standards of quality, and (3) a park exit survey to determine the percentage of day users at study sites. Study findings are used to estimate a range of day use carrying capacities at study sites and for Yosemite Valley as a whole.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207