MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908279034 · doi:10.1177/1527002518817584

The Competitive Effects of Performance-Enhancing Drugs: MLB in the Posttesting Era

2018· article· en· W2908279034 on OpenAlex
Scott A. Brave, Kevin Roberts

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsRevenueLiberian dollarEconomicsProfit (economics)FranchiseLeagueProfit marginBalance (ability)BusinessOperations managementMicroeconomicsMarketingFinanceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using estimates of Major League Baseball (MLB) financials from Forbes, we conduct a cost–benefit analysis of performance-enhancing drug (PED) testing. Player PED suspensions are shown to have lowered franchise values by statistically and economically significant margins through negative impacts on teams’ nongate revenues and expected future profit growth. Testing, however, also increased competitive balance through reductions in player costs which compressed the distribution of team wins per dollar. Finally, we estimate the number of PED suspensions per season which balances the costs and benefits of testing at the league and team levels and compare it to MLB’s current policy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it