The role of the athletes’ entourage on attitudes to doping
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 present study investigated athletes' and coaches' beliefs about the role of athletes' entourage in deterring or promoting doping. Competitive athletes and coaches in Greece and Australia took part in semi-structured interviews. Our analysis of the interviews produced five main themes: coach influence, peer influence, doping stance, doping stigma, and entourage's culture. Overall, coaches and peers having a close and trusty relationship with the athletes were considered most influential with respect to doping-related decisions. The majority of the athletes held a strong anti-doping stance but could not articulate why they held this position. This inability could be ascribed to the stigmatization of doping which led to lack of knowledge and anti-doping education. Finally, an anti-doping culture in the athletes' environment was considered central to an anti-doping stance. The study findings provide valuable information towards a comprehensive understanding of the role athletes' entourage can play in shaping athletes' attitudes and decision for doping.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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