Exploring the influence of relative age and sport participation on academic achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relatively older youth within age group cohorts typically experience advantages in both education and sport. Separate bodies of research have found that i) older relative age is associated with higher grades in school, ii) older relative age predicts sport participation, and iii) sport participation influences academic achievement. However, research has not considered whether relative age and sport participation interact to influence academic achievement. Through a secondary analysis of the baseline wave of the COMPASS data, this project explored relationships between relative age, sport participation and academic outcomes among a Canadian sample of grade 9-12 students (N = 22930; 50% female). The dependent variables were categorical measures of academic achievement in Math and English (90-100%, 80-89%, 70-79%, 60-69% and < 59%). Independent variables included relative age (quartiles 1 to 4), sex, sport participation (within and outside of school) and school grade. Results of adjusted multinomial logistic regression found no consistent influence of relative age on academic achievement in Math or English among males and females. Participating in school sport increased the likelihood of higher academic achievement in both Math and English for both sexes (OR range: 1.12 to 2.19), although this relationship was less consistent for participation outside of school. There were no significant interactions between relative age and sport participation (within school or outside of school) on academic achievement. Overall these results suggest that a more variable relationship exists between relative age and educational outcomes than previously reported, and that sport participation does not moderate the relationship between relative and academic achievement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".