Is the relative age effect prevalent in elite Brazilian male futsal? An investigation based on age categories and playing positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the existence of relative age effect (RAE) in male Brazilian futsal athletes according to age categories and playing position. Data from male futsal athletes from the top five teams in Brazil were collected during May and June 2021. The distribution of birth dates of 387 male futsal athletes was analyzed, based on their age categories (U15, n = 97; U17, n = 88; U20, n = 116; senior, n = 86) and playing positions (defender, n = 76; winger; n = 162; pivot, n = 69; goalkeeper, n = 80). Chi-squared tests were used to analyze the birth dates distribution based on quarter and semesters of the year according to age categories and playing positions. The overall analysis of birth quarter indicated a higher occurrence of births in the first quarter of the year (p<.001; V = 0.188). The age categories analysis indicated a uniform distribution in U15 (p=.09; V = 0.15) and unequal distributions in U17 (p<.001; V = 0.29), U20 (p<.007; V = 0.19) and senior (p<.01; V = 0.21) categories. The playing position analysis indicated a uniform distribution for the pivots (p=.11; V = 0.17) and unequal distribution for goalkeepers (p<.04; V = 0.19), wingers (p<.002; V = 0.19) and defenders (p<.002; V = 0.27). We concluded that RAE was present in Brazilian elite men’s futsal, especially in the U17, U20, and senior categories, and goalkeepers, wingers, and defenders. Our results reinforce the need to consider the effects of relative age in the development of Brazilian elite futsal players.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".