The last quarter for sustainable environment in basketball: the carbon footprint of basketball teams in Türkiye and Lithuania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, the sports industry is one of the most important sources of concern due to its negative environmental effects. Especially due to the intense competition schedule, teams and fans have to travel constantly. In this context, the aim of this study, which aims to fill the gap in the literature, is to calculate the carbon footprints of the teams in the Turkish and Lithuanian national basketball leagues based on their travels in the 2021–22 season. The research was limited to Turkey and Basketball national basketball league teams. In the study, the travel distances of the teams in both countries during the 2021–22 basketball season were used as a data set. In the study, the values used in the carbon footprint calculation of 2022 by the United Kingdom Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting and accepted as the IPCC carbon dioxide emission factor were used. While the carbon footprint, which is obtained by multiplying the emission factor directly by the distance covered by the vehicle type, is presented in tons; The average value calculated for each person was calculated in kg. In the sports sector, basketball is one of the most important sources of transportation-related carbon footprint due to its being one of the team sports and its intense competition schedule. According to the results of this research conducted specifically for Turkey and Lithuania, the total carbon footprint calculated for both countries is 53,029 tons. To make an assessment for both countries, in order to reduce travel based on sports; Arranging league calendars to include less travel, dissemination of green and clean energy-using (electric) vehicles, raising the awareness of club managers, developing environmental assessment policies specific to basketball federations, and increasing cooperation through awareness and training activities seem feasible for sustainable environment and basketball goals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".