Advantage reversals and relative age: Does positive youth development play a role?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative age advantages for the relatively oldest – those born closer to, but following a sport-imposed cut-off date – are well documented among youth sport participants (e.g., representation on higher level teams, etc.). Yet, a variety of benefits attributed to 'advantage reversals' (McCarthy et al., 2016) have been observed among relatively younger athletes at professional levels. Proposed mechanisms include enhanced physical and/or psychological skill developmental to overcome the disadvantages of being relatively younger in one's cohort. Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore an association between positive youth development (PYD) and relative age in a post-adolescent, athlete sample. The Developmental Assets Profile (Search Institute, 2004) was distributed to female soccer players in a one-year cohort from Ontario, Canada (~age 17 years). Responses were coded for relative age by half year based on the age-group cut-off employed by Ontario Soccer (i.e., December 31st). The presence of differences between groups of relatively older (H1; n = 64) and younger (H2; n = 57) participants and the developmental asset scales was assessed by using a one-factor, between-subjects MANOVA (p < .01); followed by a discriminant analysis for descriptive purposes. Findings suggest that two internal asset categories contributed to group separation: commitment to learning (.402) and positive values (.366). These findings provide preliminary, albeit cautious, support that 'advantage reversals' may be in part associated with enhanced PYD resulting from developmental sport experiences. Detailed research with larger, more diverse samples is needed. Future research avenues are discussed.Acknowledgments: Support was received through a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Fellowship (K. Smith).
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".