MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924319605 · doi:10.1136/bmj.l1120

Sex, gender, and sports

2019· editorial· en· W2924319605 on OpenAlexaff
Cara Tannenbaum, Sheree Bekker

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute of Gender and HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCongenital adrenal hyperplasiaAthletesTestosterone (patch)Principle of legalityDisorders of sex developmentEthosMedicineAndrogenPolitical scienceEndocrinologyLawInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New regulations challenge the evidence based, benevolent ethos that underlies medical practice In 2018, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) introduced new eligibility regulations for female athletes with differences of sex development, including those with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, androgen insensitivity syndrome, and 5α-reductase deficiency (box 1).1 The regulations are based on the contention that women with high levels of endogenous testosterone and androgen sensitivity have a performance advantage over their peers. Athletics South Africa and Mokgadi Caster Semenya, the South African runner who won Olympic gold medals in 2012 and 2016, are contesting the legality of the new regulations. Box 1 ### IAAF eligibility regulations for female athletes with differences of sex development1RETURN TO TEXT

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0140.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.010

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207