The influence of relative age on youths' developmental experiences in sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative age describes youths' age within their age group cohort, which typically varies by approximately 12 months (see Wattie et al., 2015). Research on youth sport indicates that relative age may influence the likelihood of staying involved in sport (Lemez et al., 2013), suggesting that relative age may influence youths' experiences in sport. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between relative age and youths' self-report of developmental experiences in sport. A sample of 776 youth (mean age 14.4 years, ±2.24; 49% female) from Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia completed the Youth Experiences Survey for Sport (YES-S: MacDonald et al., 2012). There was a statistically significant over-representation of relatively older youth in the sample (?2 (3) = 19.4, p < .001). One-way ANOVAs comparing YES-S sub-scale ratings did not reveal statistically significant differences based on relative age: personal and social skills ([F (3, 772) = 0.91, p = .44], cognitive skills [F (3, 772) = .94, p = .42], goal setting [F (3, 772) = .19, p = .90], initiative [F (3, 772) = 1.04, p = .37] and negative experiences [F (3, 559) = .13, p = .82]. There were also no significant differences in developmental experiences for males vs. females. These results suggest that youth of different relative age may not have different experiences in sport. Future research would benefit from sport-specific analyses, and prospective and longitudinal designs to better understand the relationship between relative age, experiences in sport, and likelihood of persistence in participation.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".