The interaction between constituent year and within‐1‐year effects in elite German youth basketball
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current state of research on relative age effects in basketball shows an uneven picture. These mixed results might be caused by the interaction of constituent year and within‐year effects. Our aim was to examine constituent and within‐1‐year effects in elite German youth basketball. The sample ( n = 4400) included players competing in the JBBL (Under‐16 first division) and the NBBL (Under‐19 first division) from 2011/2012 until 2013/2014. A multi‐way frequency analysis revealed an interaction of constituent year effects and within‐1‐year effects for the JBBL , χ 2 (6, 2590) = 12.76, P < 0.05. NBBL data showed significant constituent year effects, χ 2 (2, n = 1810) = 25.32, P < 0.01, and within‐1‐year effects for all three age bands but no interaction. The interaction between constituent year and within‐1‐year effects in the JBBL showed reduced within‐1‐year effects with increasing age. Once players enter the system in the JBBL , relatively younger players seem less likely to drop out of the system. Results offer new insight regarding how the regulations of this talent development system may influence athletes' opportunities to enter the system and their likelihood of staying at the highest levels of competition.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".