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
Many different articles have been written about doping in sport, but only relatively recently has there been a significant interest in the effects of doping bans and the rhetoric surrounding them. Several analyses have suggested that doping bans have the effect of promoting a sex and/or gender social order. This article continues the logic of these analyses, but claims that this social order is specifically heterosexual. Butler’s heterosexual matrix is used to critique the subjugation of sexuality in these sex/gender analyses, and to assert that sexuality is implicated in the construction of sex and gender. Following Butler’s understanding of sex, gender and sexuality as mutually dependent on one another this article proceeds to illustrate that female dopers are one category of women who disrupt the heterosexual matrix. It is suggested that the dislike of female dopers is similar to the dislike of lesbians and women who are considered ‘ugly’, for such female athletes fail to meet the criteria of heterosexual femininity. This article argues that doping is an ethical issue that should also consider athletes and non-athletes who are affected by the implications of anti-doping attitudes and bans.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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