MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319969426 · doi:10.3390/nu15040881

Dietary Supplements: A Gateway to Doping?

2023· review· en· W4319969426 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesMedicineNarrative reviewGateway (web page)Dietary supplementHealth benefitsIntensive care medicineTraditional medicinePhysical therapyFood scienceBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dietary supplements are widely used among athletes, but many may be unaware of the potential for unintentional doping, especially considering that supplements can often be contaminated with prohibited substances. The reason behind the widespread use of dietary supplements among athletes is often cited as being for the purposes of enhancing health or performance. However, many athletes turn to unreliable sources of information, and often lack knowledge of dietary supplement regulations. The aim of this narrative review is to explore the current research surrounding the psychological constructs (such as norms, attitudes, and beliefs) related to dietary supplement use among athletes that may lead to inadvertent doping. This review also covers possible programme structures that may be effective at preventing inadvertent 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.006

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicDoping in SportsFrench-language works237,207