The relative age effect among elite youth competitive swimmers
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
The aim of this study was to analyse the relative age effect (RAE) in competitive swimming. The best 50 Portuguese swimmers (12- to 18-year-olds) for the main individual swimming pool events of both genders were considered. Analysis was conducted on 7813 swimming event participants, taking account of respective swimmer birth dates and the Fédération Internationale de Natation points gained. Differences in the distribution of birth dates by quarter year were determined using the Chi-square. A one-way analysis of variance ANOVA was used to test for differences measured in points between individuals by quarterly birth year intervals. A two-way analysis of variance ANOVA was also conducted to test the interaction between gender and seasonal birth date with regard to performance. The results show an inequitable distribution (p<0.01) of birth dates by quarter for almost all age groups and both genders. However, the distribution of birth dates by quarter for each considered swim event shows that RAE seems to exist only for 12-year-old females and 12- to 15-year-old males. Analysing mean swimming performance, post-hoc results (p<0.01) show no consistency in RAE. Higher performance occurs among older swimmers only in 100 m butterfly (female 1998, 1st≠2nd quarter, p=0.003). The results also show no interaction between gender and seasonal birth date (p<0.01). Findings of this study show that a higher number of swimmers, particular males, are born in the first two quarters of the year, although there is mostly no effect of seasonal birth date on performance differences within the top 50 swimmers.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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