Examining relative age effects on performance achievement and participation rates in Masters athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the relative age effect has been widely observed in youth sports (Musch & Grondin, 2001), it is unclear whether it generalizes across the lifespan. The purpose of this study was to examine the relative age effect among a population of Masters athletes using archived data. Two successive studies examined the frequency of record-setting achievements (Study 1) and the frequency of participation entries (Study 2) at the US Masters track-and-field and swimming championships as a function of an individual's constituent year within any 5-year age category. Results of Study 1 indicated that the probability of setting a record increased if Masters athletes were in the first year, and decreased if they were in the third, fourth or fifth year, of an age category. Results of Study 2 indicated that the likelihood of participating in the National championships increased if Masters athletes were in the first or second year, and decreased if they were in the fourth or fifth year, of an age category. We highlight and discuss potential advantages afforded to Masters athletes who are relatively younger than their peers in the same 5-year age category.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".