MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389108519 · doi:10.1080/16078055.2023.2287210

Gym climbing constraints and negotiations during the pandemic

2023· article· en· W4389108519 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Leisure Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimbingNegotiationIntrapersonal communicationPandemicInterpersonal communicationPublic relationsPsychologyExplicationRecreationPolitical scienceSocial psychologySociologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EngineeringMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this conceptual paper, we explore the impact of the pandemic, along with governmental and gym safety measures on gym climbing participation. We explain how internal and external forces have hindered participation and how gym climbers negotiated with those constraints during the pandemic. Drawing from secondary data sources in climbing-related media and organizations, we first illustrate how climbing gyms adapted their safety policies from shutdown to reopening phases. This highlights the role of pandemic and safety measures in shaping structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal constraints. The conceptual explication of pandemic-induced gym climbing constraints enables us to further analyse how individuals adjusted their participation and devised alternatives to sustain their climbing activities. Our discussion contributes to the understanding of human perceptions and responses in crisis situation and highlights avenues for future research, particularly in relation to gym professionals and climbers’ responsibilities and resources in addressing collective societal challenges and sustaining exercise engagement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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