Cheating, lying, and trying in recreational sports and leisure practices
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
This paper analyses the ethics of rule breaking, lying, and failing to try one’s best in recreational sports and leisure activities. Foundational philosophical arguments regarding the ethics of cheating, lying, and failing to try by Scott Kretchmar, Robert Simon, and Sissela Bok are applied to cases of seemingly unethical behaviour in leisure practices. Three specific scenarios are addressed: (1) recreational-level participants who intentionally break rules, (2) participants who exaggerate their performances, and (3) participants who appear more concerned with collecting medals and ensuring selfies are taken than with putting forth significant effort. The resulting philosophical analysis addresses why cheating, lying, and sandbagging can be tolerated as part of the ethos of some leisure activities while being disdained in others, and what, if anything, is morally wrong about cheating, lying and not trying one’s best during recreational sports and leisure practices.
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 | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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