MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996609515 · doi:10.1249/jsr.0000000000000660

The Olympia Declaration

2019· article· en· W2996609515 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Sports Medicine Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMinistry of Culture and SportNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensUniversity of BrightonTrakya ÜniversitesiUniversity of Patras
KeywordsDeclarationEliteLawHistoryPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite efforts spanning two decades to control doping in sport, the problem persists with no real signs of abating. International opinion leaders in antidoping and Olympic sport were invited to discuss the future ideal of an elite sport system free from doping. The International Olympia Symposium “Becoming an Olympic Athlete without Doping,” was held at the International Olympic Academy, in the shadows of the ancient games and served as a catalyst to promote a renewed commitment to Olympism as an ethical and educational vision of global elite sport (see www.olympia2019.gr for details). This declaration is the result of the symposium addressed to the international sports community and society, at large, seeking support in our concerted efforts to reduce and eliminate doping (Figs. 1–6).Figure 1: Integrity in sport session: Yannis Pitsiladis (UK), Yuriy Ganus (Russia), Peter Nicholson (Australia), David Howman (New Zealand), Martial Saugy (Switzerland), Patrick Singleton (Bermuda), and Olivier Rabin (Canada).Figure 2: Writing of the declaration: Fabio Pigozzi (Italy), Miltos Ladikas (Germany), Yannis Pitsiladis (UK).Figure 3: Participants at the ancient stadium of Olympia.Figure 4: Olympism and Ethics in Sport session: Yannis Giossos (Greece), Andrea Petróczi (UK), Michael J. McNamee (UK) Sigmund Loland (Norway), Huanming Yang (China).Figure 5: Laying of wreaths (Olivier Rabin, Canada) at the stele of Baron Pierre de Coubertin, where the heart of the founder of the modern Olympics rests.Figure 6: The international experts prepared for the symposium with an enlightening walking through Ancient Olympia where every 2 years the Olympic flame is lit.We believe that: Doping and cheating threaten the essence of sport and the embodiment of the Olympic ethos and spirit. Doping practices and the associated persistent suspicion cast doubt on athletic achievements. The public at large clearly desires clean and fair sport, and athletes want to compete in a doping-free sport environment, providing strong support for antidoping efforts. The evolution of doping free or clean sport requires “out of the box” thinking. Athletes who compete without doping deserve our support. The focus on catching and sanctioning the perpetrators and telling athletes what they cannot do must be expanded to include new and innovative approaches. Athletes use doping for a plethora of reasons that vary depending on their cultural, economic, and social realities. Pragmatic antidoping needs to address the complex reasons for doping and provide solutions for athletes to avoid prohibited avenues of performance enhancement. To actively support athletes who choose to compete without doping, priority should be given to using state-of-the-art methods to educate athletes and coaches, to accurately detect doping in the least intrusive way, to impose sanctions on systemic doping, and to prevent inadvertent doping. The future of antidoping philosophy must be practical and realistic. Input from a wide range of stakeholders including the athletes, their families, coaches, sport organizations, medical and scientific experts, sponsors, and industry partners will be required to develop sound solutions. Holistic antidoping programs are emerging with a focus on critical understanding of doping, educational interventions, and effective deterrents to protect the clean athlete and promote a credible vision of elite athletic performance. We are accountable to the global sports community and committed to promote the principles of Olympism1 and sport integrity.2 We declare our shared determination to protect and promote a vision of clean sport through a holistic antidoping model. We propose a global alliance to promote Olympic values by protecting clean sport through holistic antidoping that integrates scientists, lawyers, international federations, athlete commissions, coaches, and other related organizations into policy development and execution. We seek new global collaborations in the following priority areas: Education: 1) better understand the motivations of young athletes in making doping decisions and what “being clean” means to athletes; 2) improve the perception of antidoping and policy communication with current and developing young athletes. Implementation: 1) develop new strategies to prevent systemic doping and promote a clean sport culture at all levels; 2) empower athletes to stand up for clean sport; 3) focus on actively supporting and incentivizing clean athletes. Legal: ensure greater transparency and global fairness in testing, trials, and sanctions. Finance: increase public funding for antidoping and encourage new sponsors and partners. Research and development: 1) improve and develop intelligent testing through accelerated adoption of new approaches, including innovative sample collection and storage capacity, based on standardized technology assessment procedures; 2) create more synergies between high-level scholars and research institutions at a global level into holistic antidoping.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.317 · 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