MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391818610 · doi:10.1080/13683500.2024.2314700

How climate change is damaging the US ski industry

2024· article· en· W4391818610 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Scott, Robert Steiger

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Tourism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeDamagesEconomic impact analysisGeographyNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the mid-twentieth century, warming in mountain regions has outpaced the global rate, with important regional implications for snowpacks and the ski industry. Recent climate litigation by communities in the State of Colorado signals the need to assess how observed changes in climate may have damaged the ski industry. This study presents a novel application of the SkiSim2.0 ski operations model at 226 ski areas across 4 US regional ski markets to assess what the ski industry could have looked like if post-1970s anthropogenic climate change had not occurred. Relative to 1960–1979, modelled average ski seasons (with snowmaking) in the 2000–2019 period have shortened between 5.5 and 7.1 days. National direct economic losses associated with lost skier visits and increased snowmaking costs are estimated at US$252 million annually. For the 2050s, regional ski seasons are projected to shorten between 14–33 days (low emissions) and 27–62 days (high emissions). The associated national direct economic losses range from US$657 to 1352 million annually. Climate change is an evolving business reality for the US ski industry. The economic damage already done is clear and the extent of future damages is dependent on the success of Paris Climate Agreement.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Issues in TourismSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207