The Relative Age Effect and Talent Identification Factors in Youth Volleyball in Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies in team sports have not reported evidence regarding the relative age effect (RAE) in relation to the talent identification (TI) process in volleyball, which is organized and controlled by a national federation. Volleyball is a non-contact team sport in which a player's physique does not directly affect other players in the game but is considered one of the most critical factors in the TI process. The aims of the present study were (1) to determine the differences in the quarterly distribution of age between Polish youth volleyball players from the Olympic Hopes Tournament (OHT) and the general population, (2) to investigate the quarterly differences in anthropometric characteristics and motor test results in OHT participants, and (3) to identify the criteria that determine selection for the National Volleyball Development Program (NVDP). The present study identified the RAE in young male (n = 2,528) and female (n = 2,441) Polish volleyball players between 14 and 15 years of age who competed in the elite OHT in 2004-2015. The study included anthropometric characteristics, motor test results, and selection for the NVDP. The multivariate analysis of covariance demonstrated no significant main effect for birth quarter or calendar age in any of the OHT female players or in male players selected for the NVDP. In the group of non-selected NVDP male players, the analysis demonstrated significant differences by birth quarter as a covariate for body height (F = 0.01, p < 0.001), spike reach (F = 7.33, p < 0.05), and block jump (F = 0.02, p < 0.001). Significant differences by calendar age as a covariate were observed for body mass (F = 0.53, p < 0.01), spike jump (F = 2.64, p < 0.05), block jump (F = 0.4, p < 0.01), and zigzag agility test results (F = 0.01, p < 0.01). The results showed a significant overrepresentation of early-born participants in the OHT and NVDP subsamples. The classification model demonstrated that a combination of four characteristics optimally discriminated between players selected for the NVDP and those who were not selected. This combination of variables correctly classified 77.7% of the female players and 71.8% of the male players in terms of their selection for the NVDP. The results of this study show that jumping ability and body height are crucial in the TI and selection process in youth volleyball.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".