MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161261523 · doi:10.1080/02640410802233034

Towards a unified understanding of relative age effects

2008· article· en· W2161261523 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyCLARITYConsistency (knowledge bases)AthletesPsychologyAge groupsCognitive psychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceDemographyMedicineArtificial intelligenceSociologyPhysical therapyBiologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When athletes are placed into annual age groups to organize and coordinate sport participation, certain (dis)advantages occur as a result of the subtle age differences within these groups. These differences, termed "relative age effects", have been consistently related to youth and adult sport attainment. However, there has been a lack of consistency in the terminology used in this area of research. In this paper, we consider the operational terms used in relative age research, discuss appropriate applications of terminology, and suggest directions for future research. Importantly, we argue for a unified understanding of what "relative age" means, stressing the need for clarity in directing future advances in the field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.221 · 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