Exploring feel and motivation with recreational and elite Mount Everest climbers: An ethnographic study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although a considerable amount of research provides insight into why people participate in high altitude mountaineering, it neglects to consider how climbers stay motivated and surmount the obstacles that are inherent in the activity when they perform on the mountain. Through this ethnographic study, we explored the multidimensional experience of feel and motivation of a small group of Mount Everest climbers (N = 4) as they scaled the mountain in order to shed light on factors that sustained their drive toward reaching their goals. The qualitative data collected via participant observation and multiple interviews was subjected to a content mode of analysis. Results revealed that the climbers’ motivation was influenced by the various ways in which they felt on the mountain. Differences and similarities between the felt experiences of the recreational and elite climbers, and their ability to regulate how they felt through preparation and how they responded to obstacles in order to sustain their motivation, are discussed
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it