Retrospective Analyses of Stability and Variability in Relative Age Effects of Handball Talents Over Seventeen Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last thirty years research on relative age effects (RAEs) has exploded in numbers. However, the stability and variability of these effects have hardly been investigated. The three aims of this retrospective study were first to investigate the stability and variability of RAEs over 17 years, second to compare these effects for young female and male athletes, and third to compare these effects between selected and non-selected athletes relative to variability estimates from 17 years prior to assess possible changes in athlete development trends. For this study, birth dates were provided for all participants of the talent selection camps by the German Handball Federation from 2008 to 2024. Results show that first while some variability was observed, the effects remained stable. Second, there are only small differences between sexes in general, although these increased with selection. And thirdly, that selections create stronger effects for male athletes, but not for female ones. Taken together, this study provides an interesting picture of the variability and stability of relative age effects over 17 years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".