Technology and Ethical Behavior in Running Sports
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
Wearable technologies' popularity in sporting practices continues to grow. Runners use GPS watches and activity trackers to track steps, log miles, map courses, and monitor heart rates. Likewise, wearables are integrated into long distance running events, with race officials relying on technologies to effectively execute events. However, technologies can also enable and monitor cheating. Many studies focusing on the individual explore why cheaters make unethical decisions. Actor-Network Theory shifts cheating's focus from the individual and moral failings to an assemblage that includes not only the runner, but nonhumans, such as technology, as well. A 2015 Canadian Ironman cheating incident case study illuminates intricate relationships and networks between humans and nonhumans. By examining the intersections of cheating and technology in running sports, the authors see where and how technology works as intended or is repurposed. Whereas a human-centered approach to sport and cheating dismisses wearables' agency, Actor-Network Theory reveals their underexamined, sociotechnical complexities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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