MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4255966308 · doi:10.1057/9780230299375_7

Mixed Activities

2011· book-chapter· en· W4255966308 on OpenAlexaff
Lee Davidson, Robert A. Stebbins

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural (archaeology)NegotiationSnowVariety (cybernetics)Element (criminal law)AppealGeographyGeologyPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceMeteorologyArchaeologySocial scienceLawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While our classification of NCAs by separate elements has served as a useful conceptual and organizational tool, it has been evident from discussions in the preceding chapters that a number of NCAs do not sit entirely comfortably in a single category. Indeed certain activities can be considered hybrid NCAs as they involve simultaneous engagement with more than one natural element. These include the wind-propelled activities undertaken on water, land, ice or snow. Other examples are caving, canyoning and coasteering, where participants may encounter both land and water within the bounds of a single activity. Mountaineers may also be challenged by a mix of rock, snow and ice, which they negotiate using a variety of techniques encompassed by one NCA. The combination of elements in hybrid NCAs can be part of their specific appeal. As the kitesurfer put it in Chapter 3, in these activities participants can feel that the ‘boundary’ between particular elements — in his case water and air — ‘dissolves in a fluid transition’. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1040.025

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks→Same topicSport and Mega-Event Impacts→French-language works237,207→