Rock Climber Self-Rescue Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rock climbing involves some inherent danger, and rock climbers should be able to carry out basic rescue techniques for their own safety. This study seeks to assess such abilities by examining self-rescue skills in a cohort of rock climbers. METHODS: Climbers who participate in multipitch sport or traditional climbing styles were recruited via posters at a local climbing gym and on social media. Participants completed a survey assessing climbing history and confidence in their rescue skills and then were evaluated on 3 rescue scenarios in an indoor, standardized setting. Scenario pass rates were calculated and compared with rescue skill confidence on the survey. RESULTS: Twenty-five climbers participated in the study. Mean confidence in rescue skills varied from 4 to 4.5 (on a 7-point scale). The pass rates for the 3 scenarios were 28%, 68%, and 52%. Only 24% of climbers passed all 3 scenarios. Surveyed confidence in rescue skills and pass rate statistically correlated in only 1 scenario. CONCLUSIONS: Self-rescue skills were generally lacking in our study population. Climber confidence, experience, training, and climbing frequency did not appear to be associated with a higher level of rescue skills. Self-rescue skills should be emphasized in climbing instruction and courses to increase overall safety.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".