Bibliographic record
Abstract
“After months of dieting and frustration, Cain found herself choosing between training with the best team in the world, or potentially developing osteoporosis or even infertility. She lost her period for 3 years and broke five bones. She went from being a once-in-a-generation Olympic hopeful to having suicidal thoughts.” 1 (Lindsay Crouse on Mary Cain) “And so trying to shame somebody into losing weight is just such, I mean, an emotionally, psychologically and mentally traumatising way to coach somebody.” (Mary Cain) At the age of 17, Mary Cain was a running phenomenon in the USA when she joined Nike’s Oregon Project. In November 2019 Mary Cain went public in the New York Times with allegations of psychological and physical abuse by her coach, Alberto Salazar,1 who has subsequently apologized.2 As a result of the public weighing practices, being told she needed to become “thinner, thinner and thinner” to improve her performance and public body shaming, Cain developed the syndrome of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S). Cain’s disturbing disclosure caused a flurry of media attention exposing the dark underbelly of elite youth sport culture. Mary Cain’s story is a ‘call to action’ for sport. Do youth sport programmes meet the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s standards of a ‘safe sport’ culture?3 In the recent publication on Safeguarding at the Youth Olympic Games (YOG2018), 1254 athletes were asked to define their understanding of the term ‘safe sport’. The results were sobering. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.010 |
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.
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".