Sex, drugs and science: the IOC’s and IAAF’s attempts to control fairness in sport
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 traces the history of two important policies in sport: rules against drugs and ‘ambiguous’ athletes in women’s events. We identify three phases in the work of the International Olympic Committee’s and International Amateur Athletic Federation’s medical committees: (1) from the mid-1960s to the 1970s, the medical grounding of the committees and the members’ worldviews encouraged the groups to enlist scientific techniques to solve drug use and sex ambiguity issues; (2) from the 1970s to the 1980s, administrative confusion underscored both committees, but scientific personnel gained legitimacy and furthered their own agendas; and (3) from the 1980s to the mid-1980s, the seeds of diversion in sex and drug tests were sown. The central finding of this study is that the stakeholders who shaped anti-doping and sex testing policies took for granted concerns regarding ethics and instead increasingly relied upon medical, scientific, and technical practices to define and control fairness in sport.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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