Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human interactions transform recreation and sport spaces into meaningful places. Textures, sights, and sounds are some of the elements that contribute to place meanings (Tuan, 1975). Beyond these sensory characteristics, a complex range of interconnected factors exist. While place meaning and place attachment have been studied in built and natural environments, there has been little comparative research between these settings in the context of recreation and sport. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate how a group of 21 rock climbers from Western Canada experienced natural outdoor and indoor climbing sites by addressing the question: “What transforms a climbing space into a climbing place?” Insight into rock climbers’ relationships with natural and indoor climbing sites was gained through an interpretive inquiry which helped the researcher understand the meanings, experiences, and behaviours of the climbers from their perspectives (Schwandt, 2001; Tribe, 2004; Williams, 2000). Semi-structured in-depth interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed to identify emergent themes (Patton, 2002). Analysis of the outdoor climbing narratives identified eight place themes which were grouped into three dimensions. This was followed by an analysis of the indoor climbing narratives which distinguished nine themes which were also grouped into three dimensions. Finally, the dissertation concludes with a discussion of the scholarly insights through consideration of the dimensions of place attachment and theories inclusive of suggestions for future place and rock climbing research. Exploring the way rock climbers interact in two very different types of settings (indoor and outdoor) contributes to a better understanding of place meaning and place attachment in the recreation and sport context both in theory and practice. The fundamental implication of the study findings for place theory is despite the similarity in terms of the physical mechanics of climbing in various settings, place meanings will vary depending on whether that activity takes place outdoors or indoors. Practical recommendations are provided for site managers and rock climbers to further enhance the climbing experience and establishment of place meanings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".