Addressing grading bias in rock climbing: machine and deep learning approaches.

IF 2.3 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living Pub Date : 2025-01-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fspor.2024.1512010
B O'Mara, M S Mahmud
{"title":"Addressing grading bias in rock climbing: machine and deep learning approaches.","authors":"B O'Mara, M S Mahmud","doi":"10.3389/fspor.2024.1512010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12716,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","volume":"6 ","pages":"1512010"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881084/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1512010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
459
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信