ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2024
Addressing grading bias in rock climbing: machine and deep learning approaches.
Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The determination rock climbing route difficulty is notoriously subjective. While there is no official standard for determining the difficulty of a rock climbing route, various difficulty rating scales exist. But as the sport gains more popularity and prominence on the international stage at the Olympic Games, the need for standardized determination of route difficulty becomes more important. In commercial climbing gyms, consistency and accuracy in route production are crucial for success. Route setters often rely on personal judgment when determining route difficulty, but the success of commercial climbing gyms requires their objectivity in creating diverse, inclusive, and accurate routes. Machine and deep learning techniques have the potential to introduce a standardized form of route difficulty determination. This survey review categorizes machine and deep learning approaches taken, identifies the methods and algorithms used, reports their degree of success, and proposes areas of future work for determining route difficulty. The primary three approaches were from a route-centric, climber-centric, or path finding and path generation context. Of these, the most optimal methods used natural language processing or recurrent neural network algorithms. From these methods, it is argued that the objective difficulty of a rock climbing route has been best determined by route-centric, natural-language-like approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.