Relative age effect in lower categories of international basketball
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To be able to value the relative age effect in the male and female World Championships played between 2005 and 2010 in the U17 categories (athletes 17 years or younger), U19 (athletes 19 or younger) and U21 (athletes 21 years or younger) a sample of 954 players has been selected. The variables registered were their dates of birth, the category of the competition, gender, height and official statistics of each player obtained from the International Basketball Federation (FIBA). A clear relative age effect was found (in both male and female categories) fading with age, being higher in the U17 category, slightly less but also significant in the U19, and no significant effect found in U21. This effect persists when the different specific positions were analysed in the male categories, being clearer in the positions that require more physical strength. In female categories the results do not back the existence of the relative age effect. Also, differences were found in height in the male category with regard to the players’ year-quarter of birth, but its interpretation is not consistent with the relative age effect. In the female category no differences were found in height. Finally, the performance difference of the players in the male and female categories hardly varies with regard to the year-quarter of birth.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".