Individual and contextual factors in ethical decision making: A case study of the most significant doping scandal in Canadian university sports history
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 case study is written for instructors of sport management courses focused on ethics and integrity-related issues in team environments. The case highlights the real world example of the University of Waterloo Warriors varsity football that, in 2010, experienced the most significant doping scandal in Canadian university sports history, with a total of nine anti-doping rule violations asserted through the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. This case study also incorporates the findings of an independent review of the Waterloo football program in relation to the use of banned substances, and includes first-hand accounts from Bob Copeland who was the acting director of athletics. These findings are then interpreted in the context of relevant theory related to performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) use. Along with the findings of this review, which included interviews with athletes, coaches, and administrators, the case study provides important insights into ethical decision making processes and leadership structures in a team sport environment. Particular emphasis is placed on the role that individual cognitive antecedents and contextual organizational factors (i.e., policies, leadership, ethical climate, and infrastructure) play in ethical decision-making processes.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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