Athletes' Knowledge and Views on OTC Medication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A questionnaire was administered to elite athletes from Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA representing 10 Olympic sports in order to explore knowledge and understanding of over-the-counter (OTC) medication since the removal of many of these substances from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List, in 2004. Athletes demonstrated limited knowledge and understanding. Around half (50.5 %) knew the penalty incurred following a doping violation involving a banned OTC stimulant. The terms Monitoring Program and Specified Substance List were understood by 43.3 % and 67.5 % of respondents, respectively. Overall, the status of substances in relation to the Prohibited List was correctly identified in just 35.1 % of cases. As a whole, athletes were of the opinion that OTC stimulants posed a risk to health, were performance enhancing and that their use was against the spirit of sport. They were undecided as to whether these drugs should be returned to the Prohibited List. Elite athletes require targeted education programmes that will enable them to make informed decisions on the potential of OTC medications for therapeutic or performance enhancing purposes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".