Perceived competence in ice hockey and its associations with relative age, early sport specialization, and players’ position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Ice hockey is a sport that has gained much attention in recent times, particularly concerning the development of young players. In the domain of youth sport development, one significant factor that must be considered is the perceived competence of players. This variable is closely linked to positive psychological outcomes and sustained practice. However, there is a lack of understanding about how other important developmental factors such as age, early sport specialization, players' position and relative age affect players' perceived competence. Therefore, the objective of this study is to explore the relationships between these developmental factors, perceived ice hockey competence and a global measure of perceived sport competence. Methods: Data was drawn from 971 players (14.78 ± 1.61 mean age), who completed on-line questionnaires, from which we conducted path analyses involving all variables. Results: Younger players tend to display higher perceived competence scores than older players. Additionally, players who opted to specialize earlier also reported higher perceived competence. Furthermore, forwards and defensemen had differing perceptions of their competence, which was in line with their respective roles on the ice. The study also showed relative age effects, in which players who were born earlier relative to the selection period tend to perceive themselves more advantageously in three components of perceived competence. Discussion: Based on these findings, several recommendations are proposed for coaches and decision-makers to encourage the positive development of ice hockey players. The study highlights that ice hockey-specific competencies are influenced by various factors, such as early sport specialization, relative age effect, player age, and position.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".