MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2614895159

The relative importance of play, practice and soccer-related skills in childhood on the later success of elite soccer players

2014· article· en· W2614895159 on OpenAlexaff
David T. Hendry, Nicola J. Hodges

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEliteDiversity (politics)PsychologyDemographicsLogistic regressionEarly childhoodDevelopmental psychologyDemographyMedicineSociologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been continued discussion about the relative importance of early sport diversity and play-type activities in childhood and its relation to later success in sport. In this study we evaluated whether these activities (in addition to other more traditional measures of practice and skill) successfully differentiated elite soccer players who subsequently attained professional (PRO) status at age 16 yr (n=26) from those that did not (RELEASED, n=76). These players were initially evaluated ~3 yr prior to being retained or released (see Hendry et al., 2014). At that time we asked for retrospective estimates of hours in organized practice and “play” (i.e., soccer activities outside of organized practice) during childhood (5-12 yr) and across their careers, demographics pertaining to start age and involvement in other sports, and coach ratings of tactical, technical, physical and creative skill. Players that subsequently attained professional status began practicing in an elite soccer academy earlier (Mpro =9.54 yr, SD = 2.18; Mreleased = 11.38, SD = 2.10, t(100) = 3.82, p<.001) and participated in fewer sports (Mpro = 4.17, SD = 1.69; Mreleased = 5.41, SD = 2.72, t(100) = 2.00, p <.05) than their peers. Binary, logistic regression analysis on the practice data showed that only hours in soccer practice significantly predicted group membership. With respect to the evaluation of skills, only technical skill was a significant predictor of group membership. Despite previous literature, we did not find any evidence that play or diversity were predictors of later success. In fact, the successful players engaged in fewer sports in childhood than their less successful peers. In contrast and more in line with early predictions of deliberate practice theory, early access into an elite Academy, coupled with high amounts of formal practice, were the best predictors of early adulthood sport expertise.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSport Psychology and Performance→French-language works237,207→