Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative Age Effects in Female Hockey Mandee Motsenbocker Division of Allied Health Sciences, Indiana University Kokomo In sport, relative age effects occur when athletes’ birthdates result in participation or performance advantages over other athletes. Typically, advantages are witnessed for those born earliest in the selection year (i.e., first-quartile athletes) as they are older than their peers. This effect is prevalent in male sports, but less studied in female sports; however, the limited female research indicates that advantages are greatest for second-quartile athletes – an unusual trend. One plausible explanation for this, especially in hockey, is that the best female athletes play male sports at younger ages. Thus, the oldest players in a cohort would actually be under-represented in female sports. Herein, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relative age effect of female hockey players ( N = 29,924), comparing those who played female hockey versus those who played male hockey. A database of Canadian female hockey players registered in 2012 was examined. Based on hockey’s selection year (January - December), athletes’ birthdates were divided into quartiles. The resultant birthdate distribution was generated using chi-square statistics to analyze those in female and male hockey. First, results confirmed that females tend to compete in all-female hockey (n = 24,985) rather than male hockey (n = 4,939). Second, birthdate distributions were similar regardless of playing female or male hockey. Specifically, the pattern included an over-representation of athletes born in the second-quartile, with an under- representation of athletes born in the fourth-quartile ( p < .001). Finally, with few exceptions, this pattern was pervasive across age divisions. This research confirms the existence of a second- quartile advantage for female athletes, but the trend did not differ from female to male hockey. Researchers ought to explore avenues to explain this trend. One possibility is examining individual sports, as most research centers on team sports. Perhaps relatively older females excel in a different sport environment. Mentor: David J. Hancock, Division of Allied Health Science, Indiana University Kokomo
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".