Defacing: affect and situated knowledges within a rock climbing tourismscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rock climbing is frequently constructed as a tourism practice that exemplifies rational, solo, masculine quests to conquer the natural world. This paper troubles such gendered norms through an investigation of Southern Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment (Canada) as a space of climbing tourism. Drawing on actor-network theory, our aim is to situate the drifts and dissolutions of affect through the narrative capacities of rock climbing. Specifically, we engage with the Escarpment as a rock climbing tourismscape to illuminate the unexpected and productive qualities of affect in rock climbing, a process we describe as defacing. Defacings reconfigure how climbing feels, shift perceptions of conservation and sustainability away from human interests, and ultimately alter climbers’ relationships to natural spaces, prompting ways of knowing and being that trouble masculinist, rational conventions. In the context of welcoming creative solutions for promoting sustainable tourism, we illustrate how attending to the affective capacities of climbing can foster new, interesting, and vital possibilities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".