Sport’s Doping Game: Surveillance in the Biotech Age
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
While a considerable amount of work has centered on the doping problem within sport scholarship, little extended attention has been given to drug testing as a surveillance system in itself. The paper draws from Haggerty and Ericson’s (2000) surveillant assemblage model to highlight the increasing convergence of once discrete surveillance systems now evident in the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) recent policy changes. It outlines the unique contribution that Deleuzian assemblage theory offers doping and sport scholarship. Assemblage theory opens up a line of research to study how surveillance is produced through the continuous monitoring of information across multiple interacting control systems. The article draws from WADA policy documents to suggest that the changing dynamics of transparency within sport increasingly place all athletes under more intense and nuanced scrutiny for any signs of suspicious activity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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