The Views of Elite Bodybuilding Athletes Concerning Doping Training, Their Level of Knowledge about Doping, and Values Education 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
The objective of this research study is to reveal the levels of knowledge of the elite bodybuilding athletes and theirviews about doping training; additionally, to evaluate the views of the participants from the standpoint of sportvalues education. The research was conducted as a phenomenology model, which is one of the qualitative researchmethods, and interview method was used. The research group was comprised of 13 national athletes (3 women and10 men) from Turkey in bodybuilding branch. The 'Personal Information Form' and 'Interview Form', which wereprepared by the researcher, were used. The data were analyzed via content analysis method, which is one of thequalitative research methods. Consequently, it was concluded that the bodybuilding athletes had low levels ofknowledge concerning doping, national and international federations did not conduct information training aboutdoping, it was important for the athletes to be successful in the contests, there was an increase in the use of doping,and that they were not competing on a level playing field.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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