From Silence to Surveillance: Examining the Aftermath of a Canadian University Doping Scandal
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines a football doping incident that occurred at the University of Waterloo (UW) in Canada, and critically analyzes the doping policy recommendations for intercollegiate sport sparked by the scandal. In March 2010 a police raid led to the discovery of a large quantity of performance-enhancing drugs at a home linked to a former student-athlete, which resulted in an entire football team being subjected to mandatory drug testing. After the release of the test results, a task force was formed by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) to investigate doping in Canadian sport. Using a triangulation approach, which includes a case study of the UW doping scandal, semistructured interviews with student-athletes, and policy analysis of the reports that transpired, we critically examine the potential effects and scope of applicability of the new recommendations put forward by the task force. In critiquing the resulting recommendations, this paper cautions that replacing a culture of silence with a culture of surveillance can have detrimental effects in the fight against doping in sport.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it