MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552975591 · doi:10.1080/19346182.2013.826666

Pistorius and the media: missed story angles

2013· article· en· W1552975591 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNormativeBeijingAthletesAdvertisingSociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyLawBusinessChinaMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pistorius, the Paralympic athlete, who wanted to compete in the Beijing Olympics but was initially denied to try out for the Olympics because his artificial legs were labelled a techno-doping device, is media story. Ever since Beijing, the main focus of the media has been around whether Pistorius should be allowed to compete against the normative able track and field Olympic athletes and whether his legs are indeed giving him an unfair advantage. This paper outlines other questions raised by the case of Pistorius that are not visible in the media. We contend that the current coverage of Pistorius misses the point and that there are issues to be dealt with that go beyond Pistorius as they generate problems for people with disabilities and, in the long run, also for the so-called people without disabilities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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