Factores de Rendimiento en la Escalada Deportiva y Escalada en Bloque: Revisión Sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review aimed to analyze all the available information on the main performance factors in sport climbing and bouldering and to provide a science-based document for coaches, athletes and researchers. Methods: A search within four different databases was conducted with the words “Sport Climbing” and “Athletic Performance” and “Bouldering” and “Athletic Performance”. The results of the search were assessed with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, which included all types of published studies performed on healthy adolescent and adult men and women that studied the different performance factors in climbing and bouldering. Results: 33 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Specific forearm and finger flexor strength, re-oxydation capacity of the local muscles, general upper body strength and an optimal power to weight ratio seem crucial for performance. Psychological factors such as stress control and previsualization may also play an important role. Cardiorespiratory fitness found in climbers is similar to what is usually found in other intermittent sports. Finally, anthropometric factors are not as important as usually reported in general literature. Isaac López Laval y Sebastian Sitko. (2019) Factores de Rendimiento en Escalada Deportiva y Escalada En Bloque: Revisión Sistemática. Rev Entren Deport 33(3). 2 Conclusions: Although several confounding factors were present, there was general agreement upon the importance of several strength, endurance, anthropometric, cardiorespiratory and psychological factors as keys in performance enhancement in sport climbing and bouldering.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".