Comparing the success of developing professional hockey players from the CHL drafts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study is to outline the differentiation of success of drafting and developing Professional Hockey Players amongst the three Major Junior Leagues (WHL, OHL, QMJHL) in the CHL. It analyzes three development leagues that help contribute to the Major Junior Rosters; The Alberta Midget Hockey League (AMHL), The Greater Toronto Minor Midget Hockey League (GTMMHL), and The Quebec Midget AAA Hockey league (QMAAA). The three Major Junior leagues select players for their teams via a drafting process. When players hit a certain age, they become eligible to be drafted, and teams select the players they believe are the best available to come play for their team. The OHL and the QMJHL draft their players after their 15-year-old season and are eligible to play for their respective clubs in their upcoming 16-year-old season. The Western Hockey league drafts players after their 14-year-old season but players cannot play for their teams until their 16-year-old season as well. Data was collected from the development leagues (AMHL, GTMMHL, QMAAA) over a 5year period analyzing players selected in the 3 Major Junior drafts and determining if they: played in the CHL, were drafted to the NHL, played Professional Hockey, and if they played until the age of 20. Then an analysis of burnout and early sport specialization is conducted to investigate factors that could cause an effect in a player’s development. The data shows that players selected in the OHL and QMJHL Drafts are significantly more likely to play Professional Hockey opposed to players selected in the WHL Draft. The analysis of burnout and early sport specialization finds that the WHL drafting players after their 14year-old season may be placing them in age inappropriate environments that could harm their participation and development in hockey. This study concludes that the OHL and QMJHL drafting method of selecting players after their 15-year-old season plays a significant role in producing Professional Hockey Players opposed to the WHL’s drafting method of selecting players after their 14-year-old season.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».