Participation and performance by women and men in ski-mountaineering sprint races during the past decade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sprint is one of the two ski-mountaineering disciplines that will be held at the coming Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics (Italy). To date little information exists on this novel Olympic discipline. METHODS: We characterized retrospectively the participation and performance in international male and female ski mountaineering sprint races from November 2012 to April 2022. Potential associations between sex and season with participation, as well as between sex, period, round and final ranking with parameters of performance were examined with linear-mixed models. RESULTS: The minimal performance time required for success (i.e., being eligible for the next round/winning a medal) decreased progressively from the qualifications (Qs) to the final (F). Finalists adopted a conservative strategy in the Qs, improving their performance in the quarter-finals (QFs) and semifinals (SFs). The best and second-best male skier and the best female skier improved their performances even further in the F, which appears to be a key feature for success. For women, the number of participants and level of competition increased over the decade, whereas male participation did not. During the last two seasons, male sprint winners performed relatively more slowly in the preliminary rounds leaving more room for improvement in the F, which could reflect increased specialization in this discipline. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide novel insights into ski-mountaineering sprint races that can guide competition strategies and could be of considerable importance in connection with the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics (Italy).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".