Needle-use declarations at the Olympic Games Rio 2016
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
AIM: We report on the results of the 'IOC Needle Policy' applied during the course of the Games of the XXXI Summer Olympiad in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The policy was intended to empower physicians to ensure appropriate clinical use of needles within team medical environments, enhance the safety of those responsible for housekeeping services and others in the Olympic environment, and permit documentation of such procedures as an adjunct to the doping control programme. Any needle use required the submission of an 'Injection Declaration Form' to IOC medical officials. METHOD: Injection Declaration Forms' were reviewed and archived. The declarations provided basic information regarding the nature of the needle use and the product(s) involved, the physician, athlete and respective National Olympic Committee (NOC). The details of the declarations were subsequently categorised. RESULTS: A total of 367 declarations were received from physicians representing 49 NOCs. Needle-use declarations were more common in athletics, gymnastics, football and aquatics. A single product was administered in 60% of the cases, and more than one product was administered in 40%. The majority of declarations indicated the use of local anaesthetics, glucocorticoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics. CONCLUSION: The introduction of a 'Needle Policy' in the Olympic Games setting was intended to minimise the use of needles by non-physicians, promote evidence-based practice and to deter needle-based doping practices. Declarations were received from 49 of 209 NOCs suggesting either that needle use is minimal among certain teams or opportunities remain to enhance compliance with such policies at future games.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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