I agree with DFosse, these are great images, dramatic and stunning. And clearly aligned to a common theme. But they are not representative of high quality processing or good "color management" beyond simple white balance.
I think what we learn about color management from these is that color management is not very important. An attractive and dynamic composition will overide technical faults.
Q1: "How did the photogs process their images, did they deliberately target specific types of display?"
A1: I doubt it. Some may edit on calibrated screens, some not. Some calibrated screens will be set very bright, some darker to match prints. Get any three photogs together and you will find 5 different philosophies on how to edit.
Q2: "What did the judges see, what kind of display?"
A1: Most likely the judges were never together, but were simply pointed to an on-line gallery and used whatever device they own. So, some judges used calibrated screens, some not. Some may have used Ipads, some laptops, some high-end calibrated monitors. The images they viewed were probably downsized jpegs in sRGB. Any great care taken by the original photog may have been lost in translation.
I participate in a large, annual print competition. Average of 1,000 photogs submit between 3,000 and 4,000 prints. Max size is 11x14 and most go the max. Three judges view the prints in a marathon 3 day session. Awards are given in several categories (landscapes, people, sports, nature, etc.). The judges are different each year, but always include on photography teacher, one photo journalist, and one commercial photog (seniors, weddings).
The winners and also-rans go on public display for 10 days. Each year, after the judging, I and a few buddies get together and complain loudly and at length at the results. The most common complaint is, "What the hell were they thinking", followed by pointing out blown highlights, blocked shadows, bad white balance, poor DOF, and soft focus.
Bottom line, the judges probably know about those things (maybe not as much as us techno-freaks), but they don't care and are willing to overlook technical faults if the composition and subject matter appeals to them.