Confidentiality, disclosure and doping in sports medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The manner in which healthcare and medical professionals serve their athlete patients is governed by a variety of relevant codes of conduct. A range of codified rules is presented that refer both the welfare of the patient and the maintaining of confidentiality, which is at the heart of trustworthy relations. The 2009 version of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), however, appears to oblige all healthcare professionals not to assist athletes if they are known to be engaged in doping behaviours under fear of removal from working with athletes from the respective sports. In contrast, serving the best interests of their athlete patients may oblige healthcare professionals to give advice and guidance, not least in terms of harm minimisation. In so far as the professional conduct of a healthcare professional is guided both by professional code and World Anti-Doping Code, they are obliged to fall foul of one or the other. We call for urgent and pressing inter-professional dialogue with the World Anti-Doping Agency to clarify this situation.
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 | 0.031 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".