An Analysis of Participation and Performance of 2067 100-km Ultra-Marathons Worldwide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the number of successful finishers and the performance of the athletes in 100-km ultra-marathons worldwide. A total of 2067 100-km ultra-marathon races with 369,969 men and 69,668 women competing between 1960 and 2019 were analyzed, including the number of successful finishers, age, sex, and running speed. The results showed a strong increase in the number of running events as well as a strong increase in the number of participants in the 100-km ultra-marathons worldwide. The performance gap disappeared in athletes older than 60 years. Nevertheless, the running speed of athletes over 70 years has improved every decade. In contrast, the performance gap among the top three athletes remains persistent over all decades (F = 83.4, p < 0.001; pη2 = 0.039). The performance gap between the sexes is not significant in the youngest age groups (20–29 years) and the oldest age groups (>90 years) among recreational athletes and among top-three athletes over 70 years. In summary, especially for older athletes, a 100-km ultra-marathon competition shows an increasing number of opponents and a stronger performance challenge. This will certainly be of interest for coaches and athletes in the future, both from a scientific and sporting point of view.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".