MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nóminas, seguridad social y contratación laboral 2006. Actualización normativa: Real decreto-ley 5/2006, de 9 de junio, para la mejora del crecimiento y del empleo (BOE del 14)

2006· article· en· W15228160 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Law and Work Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesDecreePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice of enhancing athletic performance through foreign substances was known from the earliest Olympic games. In 1967, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) established a Medical Commission responsible for developing a list of prohibited substances and methods. Drug tests were first introduced at the Olympic winter games in Grenoble and at the summer games in Mexico City in 1968. In February 1999, the IOC convened the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport recommended creation of an International Anti-Doping Agency. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was formed in Lausanne, Switzerland on the basis of equal representation from the Olympic movement and public authorities. One of the mandates of WADA was to harmonize the Olympic antidoping code and develop a single code applicable and acceptable for all stakeholders. The world antidoping code developed by WADA included creation of several international standards (IS). The purpose of each IS was harmonization among antidoping organizations. The ISs were developed for laboratories, testing, the prohibited list, and for therapeutic use exemptions (TUE). The objective of this manuscript is to present a brief history of doping in sport and describe creation of WADA in 1999. The components of the World Anti-Doping code (in particular, the Therapeutic Use Exclusion program or TUE) is described. The WADA code defines a TUE as "permission to use, for therapeutic purposes, a drug or drugs which are otherwise prohibited in sporting competition." Experiences of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport Doping Control Review Board are presented because this national TUE committee has been operational for over 12 years. The challenge of developing a rigorous global antidoping program requires acceptance of doping as a problem by sport organizations, athletes, and public authorities. Individual stakeholders must be prepared to preserve the values of sport, which means free from doping. This will require vigilance by all interested parties for the benefit of elite athletes and society overall.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it