IOC consensus statement on elite youth athletes competing at the Olympic Games: essentials to a healthy, safe and sustainable paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the pronounced ongoing growth of global youth sports, opportunities for and participation of youth athletes on the world sports stage, including the Olympic Games, are expected to escalate. Yet, adolescence is a vulnerable period of development and inherently dynamic, with non-linear and asynchronous progression of physical, physiological, psychological and social attributes. These non-concurrent changes within and between individuals are accompanied by irregular and unpredictable threats and impediments. Likewise, the evident age-based criteria and conventional path for those youth athletes deemed eligible candidates for the Olympic Games are not well or consistently defined. Furthermore, the unstructured and largely varying policies and practices across the sporting International Federations specific to youth participation underscore the need to establish a contemporary universal paradigm that would enable elite youth athletes to navigate an individualised healthy pathway to personal, athletic and sport success. First, we reviewed and summarised key challenges facing elite youth athletes and the relevant evidence fundamental to facilitating and supporting central aspects of health and well-being, while empowering safe, sustainable and positive engagement during athletic and personal advancement and competition. Second, we developed and present a modern elite youth athlete model that emphasises a child-centred, practical framework with corresponding guidelines and recommendations to protect health and well-being while safely and favourably managing international sport competition. Our proposed evidence-informed paradigm will enable and support individualised pathways for healthy, well-rounded and sustainable positive engagement while achieving sport success for youth contending or aiming to compete at world-class international sporting events.
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 | 0.049 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
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".