"I definitely don't think it was enough at all": A qualitative exploration of athletes' experiences and perspectives on doping prevention education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent athletes are being exposed to steroids and other illegal doping agents as early as 12 years of age. Educational doping prevention programs are being implemented during adolescence, but many athletes still lack doping knowledge. To ensure more effective doping education for adolescents, current gaps in doping knowledge needs to be identified and educational program delivery should be tailored to athletes' preferences. The purpose of this study was to explore young adult athletes' insights about the adequacy of the doping education they received as adolescents, and their recommendations for improving doping prevention education. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 athletes (n = 11 women and n = 10 men) who have competed at the provincial level or higher. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed inductively with thematic content analysis. Four themes emerged relating to athletes' doping education. First, athletes value doping prevention education, but the extent to which they deem it to be valuable in their sport varies considerably. Second, athletes discussed how they acquired their doping knowledge, with many athletes receiving very little education as an adolescent. Third, athletes discussed forms of doping education that were impactful and effective for them. Fourth, the athletes provided recommendations for delivering doping education to adolescent athletes based on their experiences and knowledge. The athletes received insufficient and inadequate doping education as adolescents. The athletes highlight a need to implement more formal doping education during adolescence that is more engaging, and delivered by sources respected by the athletes.Acknowledgments: This project has been carried out with the support of the World Anti-Doping Agency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".