EXPERTISE DEVELOPMENT IN VOLLEYBALL: THE ROLE OF EARLY SPORT ACTIVITIES AND PLAYERS’ AGE AND HEIGHT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyse the developmental pathway of skilled and less skilled volleyball players by focusing on the quantity and type of sporting activities, as well as their age and height in comparison to peers in those experiences. Retrospective interviews were conducted to provide a longitudinal and detailed account of sport involvement of 30 skilled and 30 less skilled volleyball players (15 male and 15 female players per group) throughout different developmental stages (stage 1: 8-12 years; stage 2: 13-16 years; stage 3: 17-20 years). Results indicated that the developmental pathway of these volleyball players (i.e. skilled and less skilled) was characterized by an early diversified sport involvement with a greater participation in sport \n activities during stages 1 and 2. However, skilled players specialized later in volleyball (between age 14 and 15) and performed more hours of volleyball at stage 3 (from 17 years of age onwards). Also, skilled players (male and female) were younger in both the diversified sport activities and volleyball at the later stages of development (i.e. stages 2 and 3), and skilled female players were taller than peers in those activities in the early stages of development (i.e. stages 1 and 2). The present findings suggest early diversification as a feasible pathway to reach expertise in volleyball and highlight the importance of practicing with older peers once specialization in the main sport has occurred. The findings highlight the need for coaches and sport programs to consider different stimuli existing within the training environment (i.e. characteristics of athletes, such as age and height) that influence the quality of practice and contribute to players’ expertise development.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".