The Matthew Effect in Running: An Analysis of Elite Endurance Athletes Over 23 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency of countries represented in the TOP20 long-distance elite runners ranking during 1997–2020, taking into account the countries’ Human Development Index (HDI), and to verify if the Matthew effect can be observed regarding countries’ representativeness in the raking alongside the years. Methods The sample comprised 1852 professional runner athletes, ranked in the Senior World TOP20 half-marathon (403 female and 487 male) and marathon (480 female and 482 male) races, between the years 1997–2020. Information about the countries’ HDI was included, and categorized as “low HDI”, “medium HDI”, “high HDI”, and “very-high HDI”. Athletes were categorized according to their ranking positions (1st–3rd; 4th–10th; > 10th), and the number of athletes per country/year was summed and categorized as “total number of athletes 1997–2000”; “total number of athletes 2001–2010”; and “total number of athletes 2011–2020”. The Chi-square test and Spearman correlation were used to verify potential associations and relationships between variables. Results Most of the athletes were from countries with medium HDI, followed by low HDI and very-high HDI. Chi-square test results showed significant differences among females ( χ 2 = 15.52; P = 0.017) and males ( χ 2 = 9.03; P = 0.014), in half-marathon and marathon, respectively. No significant association was verified between HDI and the total number of athletes, but the association was found for the number of athletes alongside the years (1997–2000 to 2001–2010: r = 0.60; P < 0.001; 2001–2010 to –2011–2020: r = 0.29; P < 0.001). Conclusion Most of the athletes were from countries with medium HDI, followed by those with low HDI and very-high HDI. The Matthew effect was observed, but a generalization of the results should not be done.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".