MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258741026 · doi:10.1123/jis.2014-0093

Exploring Relationships between Passion and Attitudes Toward Performance Enhancing Drugs in Canadian Collegiate Sport Contexts

2015· article· en· W2258741026 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intercollegiate Sport · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionAthletesPsychologyPermissiveRecreationScale (ratio)Social psychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePhysical therapyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to explore relationships between passion and attitudes toward performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Participants were 587 male and female varsity and coed intramural athletes from four Southern Ontario universities. Athletes completed the passion scale (Vallerand et al., 2003) and the performance enhancement attitudes scale (Petróczi, 2006). Full sample regression analyze revealed that higher scores on obsessive passion items were associated with more permissive attitudes toward PEDs (B =, 26, p < .001), while higher scores on harmonious passion items were associated with less permissive attitudes toward PEDs (B = -.29, p < .001). Moreover, obsessive passion emerged as a significant positive predictor of attitudes toward PEDs in all study contexts (i.e., coed recreational athletes, male/female varsity athletes). Implications for sport administrators, study limitations, and possible avenues for future research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it