Nutritional supplement and doping use in sport: Possible underlying social cognitive processes
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
There is growing evidence suggesting that nutritional supplement (NS) use is strongly associated to doping use in elite and amateur sports. However, there is a paucity of research on the psychological processes that underlie this association. The present study investigated the cognitive and behavioral components of the association between NS use and doping among adolescent sub-elite athletes. Six hundred and fifty adolescent athletes completed a questionnaire including measures of doping intentions, attitudes, norms, and beliefs about NS use. The results showed that NS users who did not report doping use had significantly stronger doping intentions and more positive attitudes and favorable beliefs toward doping use, as compared with athletes who did not use NS. In support of the "shared mental representations" hypothesis, the present findings show that NS use is associated with biased reasoning patterns in favor of doping use. This mechanism may explain why some NS users decide to engage in doping.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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