Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction, in 2004, of the World Anti-Doping Code and a standardized "prohibited list" of substances and methods proscribed in sport represented a consistent, international response to the escalating challenge of drug misuse in contemporary sport. Simultaneously, it was recognized that athletes experiencing illness or injury might legitimately require the use of "prohibited" medications or procedures, and the concept of the "therapeutic use exemption" (TUE) was introduced. The mechanisms of the TUE process are carefully defined and described in a specific WADA "international standard" (IS). As a consequence, anti-doping organizations (ADOs) were empowered to establish "Therapeutic Use Exemption Committees" (TUECs) whose membership and responsibilities were clearly delineated in the IS, and to whom an athlete and treating physician(s) could make appropriate application for a TUE. A careful review of such an application by a TUEC panel of physicians might allow permission for an otherwise prohibited course of treatment, provided that appropriate criteria had been met. Sport physicians have a clear responsibility to ensure accurate and complete documentation of the clinical circumstances requiring a TUE when completing such applications. Typically, applications for consideration by TUECs are forwarded to a national ADO, but depending on an applicant's level of competition, it may become necessary to involve an international federation or major event organization (e.g., International Olympic Committee, or Commonwealth Games Federation). Such organizations may receive, review, and grant TUEs specific to the competitions over which they preside. Increasingly, there is recognition of TUEs granted by other ADOs. However, this is not always the case; in certain circumstances, the decisions of other TUECs to grant or deny an application may be appealed. The advent of the TUE process ensures that an athlete with a genuine medical condition that necessitates the use of a prohibited substance or procedure can apply for permission to use such treatments and is not denied access to competition or training.
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 | 0.020 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.034 |
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".