MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155818453 · doi:10.1080/03610730590882855

Career-Span Analyses of Track Performance: Longitudinal Data Present a More Optimistic View of Age-Related Performance Decline

2005· article· en· W2155818453 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bradley W. Young, Janet L. Starkes

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Aging Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeirPsychologyLongitudinal studyAthletesRegression analysisDemographyStatisticsMathematicsMedicineGeographySociologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sport scientists (Starkes, Weir, Singh, Hodges, & Kerr, 1999 Starkes, J. L., Weir, P. L., Singh, P., Hodges, N. J. and Kerr, T. 1999. Aging and the retention of sport expertise. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30: 283–301. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Starkes, Weir, & Young, 2003 Starkes, J. L., Weir, P. L. and Young, B. W. 2003. “Retaining expertise: What does it take for older athletes to continue to excel?”. In Advances in research on sport expertise Edited by: Starkes, J. L. and Ericsson, K. A. 251–272. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) have suggested that prolonged training is critical for the maintenance of athletic performance even in the face of predicted age-related decline. This study used polynomial regression analyses to examine the relationship between age and running performance in the 1500 and 10,000 metre events. We compared the age and career-longitudinal performances for 15 male Canadian Masters athletes with a cross-sectional sample of performances at different ages. We hypothesized that the 30 years of uninterrupted training characteristic of this longitudinal sample would moderate the patterns of age-related decline (retention hypothesis); alternatively, the cross-sectional data were expected to demonstrate pronounced age-related decline (quadratic hypothesis). Investigators performed multimodel regression analyses on the age and performance data. Based on the absence (for longitudinal data) or presence (for the cross-sectional data) of significant quadratic components in second-order polynomial models, the authors found support for their respective hypotheses. The longitudinal data showed that running performance declined with age in a more linear fashion than did cross-sectional data. Graphical trends showed that the moderation of age-related decline appeared greater for the longitudinal 10 km performances than for the 1500 m event.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.342
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental Aging ResearchSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207