Comparative Analysis of the Influence of Coaches' Beliefs on the Attitude of Athletes to the Use of Prohibited Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the beliefs and attitudes towards doping of Coaches and Athletes in Armenia, Georgia and Moldova, and on the similarities and differences between Armenia, Georgia and Moldova on these measures. In total, 270 coaches and 810 athletes were selected and completed the questionnaire. Self-completion questionnaires for coaches and athletes were developed in a first-phase Pilot study and approved by World Anti-Doping Agency. Overall, 14% of participants represented team sports disciplines and 86% represented individual sports disciplines. More than half of the athletes were international-level athletes. About 80% of coaches and athletes were males. Whilst there was some variation between the three countries in mean ages and experience of participants, none of these was statistically significant. Analyzing the results, we can conclude that the social and professional behavior of coaches may not be the reason that may push athletes to use the Prohibited substances. The great danger is the illiteracy of coaches in the anti-doping field. If we compare the results obtained in this study with previous data in other studies, it can be assumed that coaches' delusions are transmitted to athletes, which are formed as a result of receiving incorrect information from other coaches or the media. In some cases, such as in relation to the Prohibited List, this may lead to unforeseen consequences. The obtained results show that it mandatory to include the information in the educational programs for coaches, about the athletes’ duties, ways and means to control their behavior, revealing in detail the mechanisms of such control. A necessary condition for the new Educational program for coaches may also be the holding of education seminars and workshops for athletes with the obligatory presence of their coaches using “the coach and his athletes” formula.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".