MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510548575 · doi:10.3390/jfmk1030303

Olympic Champion Sara Simeoni Talks about Gender Barriers in Sport and Medicine: Culture, Opportunities and Resources

2016· article· en· W2510548575 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara Simeoni, Daniela Catalano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChampionExcellenceEliteMedalAthletesGold medalSports medicinePolitical sciencePoliticsPsychologyMedical educationMedicinePublic relationsPhysical therapyHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An overview of the relationship between elite athletes’ sport activity and medicine was presented during a conference with guest speaker Mrs. Sara Simeoni, Italian Olympic Games high jump champion (one gold medal, in Moscow, and silver medals in Montreal and Los Angeles). She has had a particularly prolonged career for this type of sport activity, and her endorsement and support, since she is a recognized icon of sport excellence, is very important. This is particularly true in relevant and sensitive topics such as gender inequalities, physical exercise and sport ethics. During the conference, the relationship between nutrition, physical activity and health, in both medicine and social life, were also covered. In reality, we still find that the cultural, economic, societal and political barriers are present and, currently, in some regards, they are even stronger than in the past. The interplay between evidence-based medicine, elite athletes’ training, physical fitness practice and physical exercise intervention in health and disease is still being developed. Defining methods and clarifying multidimensional outcomes should, as much as possible, be pursued, and sustainable strategies and tools should be 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Functional Morphology and KinesiologySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207