MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2996609515 · doi:10.1249/jsr.0000000000000660

The Olympia Declaration

2019· article· en· W2996609515 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Yannis Pitsiladis, Manolis Abatzis-Papadopoulos, Nemer Ali, Stelios Aggeloudis, Caroline Atkinson, Beatrice Constandache, Yuri Ganus, Nikos Geladas, Savvas I. Giakoumakis, Rüştü Güner, David Howman, Giscard Lima, Evgeny Khristenko, Maria Koskolou, Vassilis Klissouras, Miltos Ladikas, Sigmund Loland, Mike McNamee, Borja Muñiz Pardos, Konstantinos Natsis, Peter Nicholson, Jonathan Ospina‐Betancurt, Konstantinos Angeloudis, Evangelos Pappas, Maksim Peteraitis, Andrea Petróczi, Theodora Papadopoulou, Fabio Pigozzi, Martial Saugy, Perikles Simon, Patrick A. Singleton, Ekaterina Sizikova, Pierre‐Edouard Sottas, Masashi Tanaka, Guan Wang, Huanming Yang

Notice bibliographique

RevueCurrent Sports Medicine Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDoping in Sports
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesMinistry of Culture and SportNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensUniversity of BrightonTrakya ÜniversitesiUniversity of Patras
Mots-clésDeclarationEliteLawHistoryPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Despite efforts spanning two decades to control doping in sport, the problem persists with no real signs of abating. International opinion leaders in antidoping and Olympic sport were invited to discuss the future ideal of an elite sport system free from doping. The International Olympia Symposium “Becoming an Olympic Athlete without Doping,” was held at the International Olympic Academy, in the shadows of the ancient games and served as a catalyst to promote a renewed commitment to Olympism as an ethical and educational vision of global elite sport (see www.olympia2019.gr for details). This declaration is the result of the symposium addressed to the international sports community and society, at large, seeking support in our concerted efforts to reduce and eliminate doping (Figs. 1–6).Figure 1: Integrity in sport session: Yannis Pitsiladis (UK), Yuriy Ganus (Russia), Peter Nicholson (Australia), David Howman (New Zealand), Martial Saugy (Switzerland), Patrick Singleton (Bermuda), and Olivier Rabin (Canada).Figure 2: Writing of the declaration: Fabio Pigozzi (Italy), Miltos Ladikas (Germany), Yannis Pitsiladis (UK).Figure 3: Participants at the ancient stadium of Olympia.Figure 4: Olympism and Ethics in Sport session: Yannis Giossos (Greece), Andrea Petróczi (UK), Michael J. McNamee (UK) Sigmund Loland (Norway), Huanming Yang (China).Figure 5: Laying of wreaths (Olivier Rabin, Canada) at the stele of Baron Pierre de Coubertin, where the heart of the founder of the modern Olympics rests.Figure 6: The international experts prepared for the symposium with an enlightening walking through Ancient Olympia where every 2 years the Olympic flame is lit.We believe that: Doping and cheating threaten the essence of sport and the embodiment of the Olympic ethos and spirit. Doping practices and the associated persistent suspicion cast doubt on athletic achievements. The public at large clearly desires clean and fair sport, and athletes want to compete in a doping-free sport environment, providing strong support for antidoping efforts. The evolution of doping free or clean sport requires “out of the box” thinking. Athletes who compete without doping deserve our support. The focus on catching and sanctioning the perpetrators and telling athletes what they cannot do must be expanded to include new and innovative approaches. Athletes use doping for a plethora of reasons that vary depending on their cultural, economic, and social realities. Pragmatic antidoping needs to address the complex reasons for doping and provide solutions for athletes to avoid prohibited avenues of performance enhancement. To actively support athletes who choose to compete without doping, priority should be given to using state-of-the-art methods to educate athletes and coaches, to accurately detect doping in the least intrusive way, to impose sanctions on systemic doping, and to prevent inadvertent doping. The future of antidoping philosophy must be practical and realistic. Input from a wide range of stakeholders including the athletes, their families, coaches, sport organizations, medical and scientific experts, sponsors, and industry partners will be required to develop sound solutions. Holistic antidoping programs are emerging with a focus on critical understanding of doping, educational interventions, and effective deterrents to protect the clean athlete and promote a credible vision of elite athletic performance. We are accountable to the global sports community and committed to promote the principles of Olympism1 and sport integrity.2 We declare our shared determination to protect and promote a vision of clean sport through a holistic antidoping model. We propose a global alliance to promote Olympic values by protecting clean sport through holistic antidoping that integrates scientists, lawyers, international federations, athlete commissions, coaches, and other related organizations into policy development and execution. We seek new global collaborations in the following priority areas: Education: 1) better understand the motivations of young athletes in making doping decisions and what “being clean” means to athletes; 2) improve the perception of antidoping and policy communication with current and developing young athletes. Implementation: 1) develop new strategies to prevent systemic doping and promote a clean sport culture at all levels; 2) empower athletes to stand up for clean sport; 3) focus on actively supporting and incentivizing clean athletes. Legal: ensure greater transparency and global fairness in testing, trials, and sanctions. Finance: increase public funding for antidoping and encourage new sponsors and partners. Research and development: 1) improve and develop intelligent testing through accelerated adoption of new approaches, including innovative sample collection and storage capacity, based on standardized technology assessment procedures; 2) create more synergies between high-level scholars and research institutions at a global level into holistic antidoping.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,067
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,224

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,003
Communication savante0,0120,004
Science ouverte0,0030,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,012
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0670,064

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,353
Écart entre enseignants0,317 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2019
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCurrent Sports Medicine ReportsMême sujetDoping in SportsTravaux en français237 207