Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several years, interest in the relationship between siblings and athletic performance has increased (Davis & Meyer, 2008). Athletes become more prepared for higher levels of competition when competing in sport with siblings and view competition against siblings different than competing against non-siblings (Davis & Meyer, 2008). Currently, there is a limited amount of research in the athletic area evaluating how birth order affects sport attainment. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the frequency of ordinal positions in varsity athletes. It was hypothesized that later born siblings may have an advantage in their sport development, and therefore, reach higher levels within sport. Therefore, we would expect to see a greater representation at the varsity level. A sample of 87 varsity athletes (male n=44, female n=43) from various sports at a southern Ontario university were surveyed. Participants answered questions regarding their birth order, sport participation with siblings, motivation to participate, and perceived sport influence by siblings. Participants were classified as youngest, oldest, or in the middle of their siblings. Using a chi-square, anticipated equal representation was found for oldest siblings (x2 = 0.31, p=.90), an over representation was found for youngest siblings (x2 = 12.45, p<.05), and an under representation was found for middle children (x2 = 8.82, p<.05). Interestingly, no varsity athletes were found to be only children. The findings of this study suggest preliminary evidence that a birth order effect exists in sport. Future studies are need to determine the external validity of these findings and explain why the phenomenon occurs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".