Understanding Summer Visitors and Their Experiences at the Whistler Mountain Ski Area, Canada
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
The popularity of operating chairlifts at alpine ski areas in the summer to accommodate activities such as hiking and mountain biking is growing, especially in North America. Research has been conducted on environmental impacts of summer use at ski areas, but the social aspects have received little empirical attention. This paper describes summer visitors' (1) demographics; (2) activities and other trip characteristics; (3) motivations; and (4) experiences and satisfaction with lift ticket fees, management strategies, conflicting activities, and other on-site conditions. Data were obtained from visitor surveys (n = 548) conducted from July to September 2000 at 5 separate sites at the Whistler Mountain ski area in Canada. Hikers, sightseers, and mountain bikers were the main activity groups. Overall satisfaction was high, but visitors were not satisfied with every aspect of their experience. Many were displeased with crowding, environmental impacts, lift ticket fees, lack of educational/interpretive information provided, and overflights by helicopter tours. Responses, however, differed among the sites, suggesting the need for managing each site separately. Explanations for these findings and implications for managers and researchers 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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