Relative Age Effect on Motor Competence in Children Aged 4–5 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a Relative Age Effect (RAE) exists in motor competence of preschool children. The hypothesis was that motor competence, assessed by the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2), would be higher in preschool children born in the first quarter of the year compared to those who were born in the last quarter of the same year. A total of 360 preschool children were evaluated of whom 208 (57.8%) were boys and 152 (42.8%) were girls, with a mean age of 4.52 years old (± 0.50). The distribution of the participants was 172 children aged 4 years old and 188 aged 5 years old. The data showed a main effect on the age factor in the total score of aiming and catching (p < 0.001) and in the total test score (p < 0.001), in the quarter of birth factor in all the dimensions studied (i.e., total score of manual dexterity (p < 0.001); total score of aiming and catching (p = 0.001); total score of balance (p < 0.001); total test score (p < 0.001)) and in the interaction between both factors (i.e., total score of manual dexterity (p = 0.005); total score of aiming and catching (p = 0.002); total score of balance (p < 0.001); total test score (p < 0.001)). Age and quarter of birth produce a RAE in 4 and 5-year-old preschool children’s motor competence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".