Comparison of Elite Orienteering Athletes' Physical and Mental Test Parameters with Their End-of-Season Competition Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orienteering is a nature sport that requires intense physical and mental performance, in which athletes attempt to find designated control points in challenging terrain using a map and compass. The present study aims to compare the physical and mental parameters measured using various tests in orienteering athletes with their end-of-season competition results and to determine the parameters that affect performance. Twenty-one male athletes competing in the elite category of the Turkish Orienteering Federation league participated in the study. Participants were divided into two groups based on their experience in the sport: inexperienced (2-5 years) and experienced (5 years and above). To measure physical performance parameters, the participants underwent a sit-and-reach flexibility test, a 20 m sprint test, Illinois agility test, active jump test, squat jump test, McGill core endurance test, isokinetic muscle strength measurement, running-based anaerobic sprint test (RAST), and 3000 m run test. To measure mental performance parameters, the D2 attention test, spatial visualization test, and mental rotation test were administered. The analysis revealed a statistically significant negative correlation between active jump, squat jump, RAST fatigue index, and 3000 m run test results and end-of-season competition scores, and a statistically significant positive correlation between years of experience and end-of-season competition scores. Regression analysis revealed that experience and aerobic endurance are two important components that influence performance. The findings show that the two most decisive variables affecting end-of-season performance are aerobic endurance (3000 m test) and athlete experience. This reveals that, in addition to physical capacity, sport-specific experience is also a critical factor in performance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".