Influences of competition level, gender, player nationality, career stage and playing position on relative age effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative age, referring to the chronological age differences between individuals within annually age-grouped cohorts, is regarded as influential to an athlete's development, constraining athletic skill acquisition. While many studies have suggested different mechanisms for this effect, they have typically examined varying sports, precluding an examination of the possible inter-play between factors. Our three studies try to bridge this gap by investigating several moderators for relative age effects (RAEs) in one sport. Handball is a sport with position-specific demands, high cultural relevance and a performance context with established developmental structures and levels of representation for males and females. In Study 1, we investigated the influence of competition level and gender on RAEs before adulthood. In Study 2, elite participation, player nationality and stage of career are considered during adulthood. In Study 3, playing position and laterality (i.e., right vs left handedness) are investigated as moderators. Collectively, the results emphasize the complex inter-play of direct and indirect influences on RAEs in sports, providing evidence toward explaining how RAEs influence the development and maintenance of expertise.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".