Wild, man-made or a bit of both? An ethical survey on the future development of the area around Seljalandsfoss waterfall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need of roads, parking lots, service centres and other man made structures seems to be increasing as numbers of visitors at touristic sites around Iceland increase, such as at the Seljalandsfoss waterfall. Measures need to be taken to accommodate those people visiting the site, but man-made structures that come along with increasing numbers of visitors could change the face of the site as well as the aesthetic experience of those present at the site. In this dissertation an effort is made to assess the plans of the municipality at the site on the base of knowledge about Icelandic landscapes, nature views throughout Icelandic history and nature use and protection in Iceland. Oppositional views as that of nature protection vs. Nature utility and the discussions and debates evolving around such views, have been dominant since the beginning of industrialisation for more than a century in Iceland, and seem to intensify. It seems vital to look beyond such dualisms and try to find insights, that incorporate more than only few extreme viewpoints. The municipal plans at the Seljalandsfoss waterfall account for the relocation of a new road, addition of parking lots and a service centre at the site, which will not only have negative affect on the view of the waterfall at the site itself, but also when approaching the site from the ring road. Although no decision has been made regarding such plans at the waterfall, as land owners opinions seem to differ regarding the actions that should be taken at the site, those in charge of these decisions should think long and hard what consequences the actions would have and how these actions would make the land appear, and thus affect the experience of those visiting the site. About 80 percent of the tourists visiting Iceland come for its wild nature. With decreasing wilderness and an increase of man made structures at such sites, people might lose the sense of wonder and the connection to such natural environments. In a world where man-made structures are increasing and people feel an increasing need to search out wild nature, the preservation of natural environments seem vital to account for a kind of experience, which brings us in touch with our surrounding and ourselves. Especially in Iceland, where much of the landscape is still untouched by man compared to other places around the globe, people should think twice before planting a building or road in the middle of an untouched landscape, not only for natures sake, but also for the sake of the one who perceives it. In the end, solutions will need to be found. It should be possible to appease both sides, the side of preserving wilderness and that of utilizing it, as for tourism, without loosing the charm of the site. In the last part of my paper I make suggestions to incorporate the these two different approaches without having to separate them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".