Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sports must protect athletes from physical and psychological harm, while ensuring fair competition.Sport ethics includes improving athlete safety (preventing injuries, supporting concussion management), athlete well-being (mental performance), and human rights (freedom from discrimination).Increasingly, freedom from sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or questioning status of citizenship, marriage, or class are ethical objectives of all those involved in sports.Sports ethics is situated within a broader sphere of bioethics as the interdisciplinary concerns of athlete wellbeing are prioritised through addressing doping [1], the morality of fighting [2], perspectives on social justice within sports for development [3,4,5], geopolitics related to sportswashing and government corruption [6,7], aesthetic judging [8,9], sex testing [10,11,12,13], racial abuse [14], and fraud [15] to name a few.These issues are important as sports play a significant role not only in the lives of athletes, coaches, and administrators, but for billions of other people (in)directly involved in recreational, competitive, and high-performance competition as fans, employees in the sport industry, facility developers, urban planners, those affected by sport-related climate change, and medical professionals.The medical establishment is deeply implicated in the ethical construction of the sporting body.It is often doctors and clinicians who decide whether an athlete is legitimate, eligible, properly categorised, or healthy enough to compete.Medical professionals, also situated within a bioethical framework, have always been devoted to protecting patients from physical and psychological harm.However, those devoted to serving athletes and improving human performance are facing new dilemmas in light of the changing dynamics of sport: "[a]lthough governed by professional boards and organizational codes of ethics, sports medicine professionals are challenged by the conflicts of interest between paternalistic care for the athlete and autonomous decisions often influenced by stakeholders other than the athletes themselves" [16: p 5, 17].For instance, a decision on whether an injured athlete can return to play is undoubtedly a medical decision, but the best interest of the athlete might become compromised by the needs of sports management and the industry.The issue of dual loyalty to the patient/ athlete and the client/organisation puts the medical professional at the centre of sport ethics [18].Also, an athlete's changing, injured, or disabled body has to be diagnosed, categorised, and labelled by an expert medical professional for fitness to play [19].Gender is fixed in a binary fashion by medical and sport experts, even in the face of non-binary evidence [10,11].Martial arts and combat sport examinations, doping regulations, and weigh-ins place body measurement and professional medical expertise at the centre of sport.Understanding how sport has changed medical practice, how it has impacted healthcare delivery, and how sports medicine professionals, researchers, clinicians, and leaders can facilitate awareness of sport ethics is of critical importance in upholding the integrity of the professional social contract.Including and beyond these specific body and medical concerns, this editorial illustratively explores ethical issues in sports, globally and in India, focusing on power and social concerns more broadly.We introduce the special theme issue articles, which offer those whose primary concern is medical ethics some points to consider, regarding how sport can be made fair and empowering, and how to protect the health of all bodies.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».