Coach Selections and the Relative Age Effect in Male Youth Ice Hockey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Relative age effects (RAEs; when relatively older children possess participation and performance advantages over relatively younger children) are frequent in male team sports. One possible explanation is that coaches select players based on physical attributes, which are more likely witnessed in relatively older athletes. PURPOSE: To determine if coach selections are responsible for RAEs by comparing RAEs in male players who played competitive versus noncompetitive ice hockey. METHODS: Using chi-square, we analyzed the birth dates of 147,991 male ice hockey players who were 5 to 17 years old. Players' birth dates were divided into four quartiles, beginning with January to March, which coincides with Hockey Canada's selection year. RESULTS: There were strong RAEs (p < .001) when players were selected to competitive teams by coaches through a tryout system. On noncompetitive teams that did not have coach selections, there were strong RAEs (p < .001) from 5 to 8 years old, but not 9 to 17 years old. CONCLUSIONS: Although coaches might perpetuate RAEs, other influential social agents might include parents, which ought to be investigated in future research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it