Orienteering as a Tool for Cognitive Research: An Implementation Guide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sport of orienteering combines physical activity with spatial navigation. Using only a map and a compass, the orienteer must locate a series of checkpoints over unfamiliar terrain using any navigational route they choose and while moving as quickly as possible. Although expert orienteers have superior spatial memory and navigational abilities, even a single session of orienteering can benefit cognition, suggesting that orienteering may be a promising way to train the brain. Research interventions involving orienteering may be especially beneficial for staving off Alzheimer's disease and related dementias that are afflicted by early impairments in wayfinding and spatial cognition. Though orienteering has gained traction in recent literature, certain barriers exist for researchers who are unfamiliar with the sport and wish to implement an intervention. Specifically, a lack of research-based resources for creating orienteering maps and courses may prevent those wishing to study orienteering from designing an intervention. Therefore, this report provides the fundamental information needed to develop orienteering maps and courses and how to implement orienteering interventions in a research setting.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".