Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines press coverage of track and field athlete Carl Lewis amid reports in April 2003 that he tested positive for three banned stimulants prior to United States Olympic Trials in 1988. Lewis, of course, won the 1988 100-meter gold medal after Canadian Ben Johnson tested positive for anabolic steroids, a development that brought disgrace to Johnson and adulation to Lewis, the ‘purer’ athlete. Because Lewis repeatedly, and perhaps arrogantly, declared himself drug-free throughout his career, berating competitors from other nations, the author expected to observe differences in how newspapers published in the United States and newspapers published internationally covered the story. Contributing to this expectation was the time at which the story broke, when the Bush administration, dismissing the concerns of other nations, launched a military assault on Iraq. Content analysis found support for expected differences in that international journalists were highly critical of Lewis and the US Olympic Committee, portraying both as sanctimonious, arrogant, and hypocritical, not unlike broader portrayals of the Bush administration amid perceived US aggression in the Middle East.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".