Será que os/as internacionais jovens voltam a sê-lo nos seniores? um estudo centrado no andebol português ao longo de mais de duas décadas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to understand if the athletes called for national handball teams in the initial stages of their development return to represent the national team as senior. The sample comprised 502 athletes - 287 men and 215 women - born between 1970 and 1985, all of whom competed at least once on national teams during the 1986/87 and 2010/11 seasons. Results highlight that only a third of the male athletes (M: 33%) and less than a quarter of the female athletes (F: 23%) that participated in the youth teams were recalled for the senior national team. When taking into consideration the results according to the category, it was observed that most athletes (M: 68%; F: 82%) who participated in the Under17 category were recalled to the Under19 category. Also approximately half of the male athletes and almost two thirds of the girls called for the Under 21 category did not participate once in the senior national team. Therefore this study seems to support the idea that there are different paths to achieve high performance in team sports. The development of opportunities for young athletes should be offered by the clubs, associations and federations, and their progress should be monitored continuously, before any process of selection or refusal.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".