The Perspectives of Amateur Soccer Players and their Coaches on the Use of Performance Enhancing Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent and youth sports seem to have progressively developed in South Africa to the point where young athletes are considering doping and the use of performance-enhancing substances (PES). This study determined the perspectives of U-19 soccer players and their coaches in the eThekwini region, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, on the use of supplements and drugs. Male participants (n = 449) playing first team soccer from development clubs in the eThekwini region, and their respective coaches (n = 30), volunteered to participate in this study. A questionnaire was administered to players and coaches were interviewed. Soccer players and their coaches believed that consuming prohibited substances in sport was unethical. The majority of the players (73.9% either agreed or strongly agreed) and coaches believed that doping in soccer is on the increase. About a quarter of the players consumed nutritional supplements and smoked cannabis. Anti-doping educational programmes and behaviour change interventions are vital in order to educate and transform athletes’ and coaches’ perspectives on doping and PES, and their resultant behaviour.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".