“More players can reach national and international levels”: coaches perceptions of “birthday-banding” in youth squash and its potential for minimising relative age effects
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Relative age effects (RAEs) are common across many youth sports that use age group structures to band athletes. This creates a significant overrepresentation of those who are born near the start of the selection cut-off date across talent pathways compared to those born towards the end. In an attempt to identify, select, and develop the most talented squash players based upon their long-term potential, England Squash designed and implemented the "birthday-banding" approach (i.e., athletes compete with and against those of the same age and move up to their next birthdate group on their birthday), which has indicated promising results for moderating RAEs across their player pathway. However, little work has focused on the perceptions of interest-holders on this approach. For this reason, the purpose of this study was to use semi-structured interviews with fifteen England Squash Talent Pathway coaches, to better understand the mechanisms of the birthday-banding approach as well as its potential benefits and limitations. Using thematic analysis, three higher-order themes were found that comprised of six lower-order themes: (a) considering organisational structures (e.g., understanding selection processes, and reflecting on competition structures and performance outcomes), (b) building appropriate settings (e.g., promoting flexibility and fluidity in groups, and creating an environment that fosters long-term development), and (c) facilitating individual athlete development (e.g., encouraging holistic development and progression, and evaluating physical and skill development). Overall, coaches spoke highly of the implementation of birthday-banding, noting the value in creating fairness for athletes who might have been removed due to their birthday and maturation levels. Coaches also reported appreciating seeing athletes having varying competition within and across a year, as sometimes athletes would be relatively older and younger than their peers within the same 12 months. Some considerations and concerns were also raised about implementing a birthday-banding approach, which have been highlighted to inform continued improvements for both athletes and coaches in the system.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».