The role of International Sport Federations in the protection of the athlete's health and promotion of sport for health of the general population
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
OBJECTIVE: To determine the priorities and activities of International Sport Federations (IFs) with respect to the promotion of health in their sport and for the general population. METHODS: All 35 IFs participating in Olympic Games in 2014 or in 2016 were asked to rate the importance of 10 indicated topics, and to report their programmes, guidelines or research activities on 16 health-related topics using an online questionnaire (response rate 97%). RESULTS: On average, the 'fight against doping' had the highest priority followed by 'health of their elite athlete' and 'image as a safe sport'. The topics with the lowest importance ratings were 'health of their recreational athlete', 'increasing the number of recreational athletes' and 'health of the general population'. All except one IF reported to have health-related programmes/guidelines/research activities; most IFs had 7 or 8 of the listed activities. Eight IFs (23.5%) stated to have activities for 'prevention of chronic diseases in the general population' but only FIFA and FINA reported related projects. CONCLUSIONS: IFs aimed to protect the health of their elite athletes through a variety of activities, however the health and number of their recreational athletes was of low importance for them. Thus, IFs are missing an important opportunity to increase the popularity of their sport, and to contribute to the health of the general population by encouraging physical activity through their sport. FIFA's 'Football for Health' and FINA's 'Swim for All' projects could serve as role models.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it