Understanding the Influence of Proximal Networks on High School Athletes’ Intentions to Use Androgenic Anabolic Steroids
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
Understanding what influences adolescent athletes is important for managers designing anti-doping initiatives. It is commonly assumed that elite athletes who dope influence adolescent athletes to similarly dope. Using the theory of normative social behavior, the effect of norms on adolescent athletes’ intentions to use steroids was examined. The social distance between respondents and the source of normative information was systematically varied to include four separate levels (friends, teammates, college athletes, professional athletes). Data were collected from 404 male adolescent athletes. Participants indicated their intentions to use steroids and their perceptions of descriptive and injunctive norms of referent others. Descriptive and injunctive norms were predictive of intentions to use steroids with the magnitude of explained variance greater with more proximal referents. Adolescent athletes’ intentions to use steroids are influenced by social norms. Moreover, the social distance of referents is consequential. Interventions strategies should incorporate teammates and friends, rather than professional athletes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 it