A Cross-Sectional Study of the Development of Lateral Preference in Ice Hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In ice hockey, players choose between one of only two ways to hold a stick, which reflects what is referred to as one's lateral preference in ice hockey. What determines this preference remains unknown. While handedness appears to be an important determinant of ice hockey's lateral preference, proportions demonstrate it cannot be the only influencing factor. The aim of the study was (1) to identify when ice hockey's lateral preference is determined in one's development and (2) empirically identify some of its determinant. The sample consisted of 106 children aged three to six, who were asked to perform a stick-handling task. The goal was to test whether their instinctive lateral preference aligned with their optimal lateral preference (i.e. the one in which they performed best), and whether this alignment was more frequent in older children. Neither chi-square nor segmented regression analyses revealed such alignment. Still, the present results suggest that ice hockey's lateral preference is likely determined around 5 years old. Also, parents were asked to answer a home-made questionnaire, which aimed to identify the potential determinant of their children's lateral preference in ice hockey. Parents identified "children's own choice" and parental observation as the main determinants. These two factors thus join handedness (which received further support in the present study) as potential determinants of ice hockey's lateral preference.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".