Climbers’ Insights on the Health Benefits of Their Sport: Combining Photovoice and Confessional Tale Genres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing interest in rock climbing research, little is known about its health benefits from the perspective of climbers themselves. This qualitative study used photovoice, a participatory method where participants selected photographs to reflect on the significance of climbing in their lives. Additionally, a confessional tale was integrated as a reflective postscript, offering insight into the researcher’s journey, and highlighting the dilemmas, tensions, and ethical or methodological challenges encountered throughout the process. Virtual and in-person focus groups were conducted, and photographs and narratives from nine rock climbers were analyzed, with pseudonyms used for privacy. Through thematic analysis five key themes emerged: (1) social connection, (2) shared adventure, (3) psychological skill development, (4) emotional regulation, and (5) full-circle moments. The findings support rock climbing’s potential as a therapeutic tool for mental health and well-being, warranting further investigation by both practitioners and researchers. Overall, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on the benefits of rock climbing, emphasizing its potential as a holistic approach that improves mental health, physical well-being, and community 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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".