Investigating the Use of Stimulants in Out-of-Competition Sport Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The List of Prohibited Substances and Methods (the List), an International Standard published yearly by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), determines which substances and methods are prohibited in sport in- and out-of-competition. Stimulants are included within drug class S.6 under the in-competition testing section of the List. Athletes may be tempted to use stimulants as ergogenic aids in-competition in order to temporarily improve their mental and/or physical functions by increasing alertness, aggressiveness, motivation, locomotion, heart rate, and reducing fatigue. The Prohibited List Expert Group, responsible for the maintenance of the List, approved WADA funding for a two-year study to determine whether athletes were also using stimulants to benefit from their performance-enhancing effects during the training phase between competitions (i.e., out-of-competition). This study, involving 11 WADA-accredited laboratories, found that the use of stimulants by athletes during training was not significantly prevalent (0.36% of positive findings), suggesting that this issue does not, at the moment, pose a further challenge to the fight against doping in sport. In addition, the study supports the current structure in the Prohibited List that differentiates banned substances into the in- and out-of-competition classifications.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".