'Games Climbers Play': Critical Sensuality in Movement, Ethics, and Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rock climbing access to public, protected, outdoor areas has increasingly become a matter of organized intervention.Tensions between the 'spirit' of a free, creative, and rebellious practice, and the challenges of growing a sustainable sport abound in climbers' experience of their recreation.Climbing 'well' is thus a problematized experience -a site of subjectification in which who belongs in environmentally and culturally sensitive places is established through an ethical stylization of conduct.Exploring how dominating norms intertwine with liberatory possibilities in the 'games' of climbing ethics, I argue for critical sensuality as a conception of how critical work emerges as an aspect of climbing 'well'.This position will be supported through consideration of Foucault's genealogical account of ethics in conversation with phenomenological, feminist, and critical sport approaches.Further, fieldwork undertaken in contested climbing spaces will engage with the bodily experience of ethical subjectification, as co-generated in narratives, interviews, and climbing practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.107 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".