RELATIVE AGE EFFECT AMONG OLYMPIAN GYMNASTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative age effect (RAE) is a worldwide phenomenon described as consequences of age variations between individuals competing in the same cohort. RAE is based on systems that use January 1 as a cut-off date, probably used to attempt to minimize developmental differences between ages and to ensure a more equitable competition. Previously, in artistic gymnastics, a majority of studies on RAE was conducted in gymnasts of national levels. This study analysed RAE both among and between elite female (NF=1268) and male gymnasts (NM=1186) who participated at all Olympic Games held from 1964 to 2016. By using χ2 test, significant difference were found: 1) within frequencies of total sample of male gymnasts born in a certain month (p<0.001); 2) within frequencies of groups of male gymnasts apparatus finalists born in a certain month (p<0.005); 3) within frequencies of groups of male apparatus finalists born in a certain quarter of the year (p<0.005); 4) within frequencies of groups of male apparatus finalists born in a certain half of the year (p<0.005). As far as female gymnasts are concerned, significant differences have not been found within frequencies of any female group born in a certain month, quarter or halves of the year. Regarding differences between genders, no significant differences have been obtained between frequencies of male and female gymnasts born in certain month, quarter and halves of the year. Despite certain differences among and between genders, the general conclusion was that RAE is not present in elite gymnasts of both genders.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".