"Hard work, sacrifice and focus will never show up in tests": Varsity and club athletes' attitudes towards performance enhancing drugs and nutritional supplements - do gender and sport type make a difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that athletes' attitudes towards performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) may differ depending on gender of the athlete and the sport they play (contact vs. non-contact). Further, while there is research regarding the attitudes towards PED use in sport, there is minimal research regarding the use of supplements. The purpose of the present study was to examine the attitudes of varsity student-athletes towards PEDs and nutritional supplements; identify personal perceptions associated with these attitudes; and test for differences in attitudes across gender and sport type. Varsity and university club athletes (n=92) completed measures of athletic identity, social norms, self-efficacy, personal standards, pressure from coaches and parents, and attitudes toward supplements and banned PEDs as well as open-ended items on perceptions of, and access to PEDs and supplements. Athletes reported more liberal attitudes towards supplements than PEDs (p
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".