Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years ago, Howe, Davidson and Sloboda (1998) provided a state of the science review of innate talent. This paper was extremely influential although much has changed in the two decades since it was published. In this review, we revisit Howe et al’s assessment and discuss current research on innate talent in sport, a domain that was largely ignored in the original review. After re-evaluating Howe et al’s criteria for innate talent we conclude that with the exception of criterion 5 (i.e., talent is domain specific), these criteria are still useful in the context of existing evidence in sport. We subsequently examine two complementary issues: Is the concept of innate talent valid? Does the concept have any utility? We conclude the concept of innate talent is valid but currently has limited utility to those working in high performance sport. We highlight several areas of future research that will ultimately inform the value of innate talent to those working at the frontlines of athlete development.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it