Cannabis and sport: A World Anti‐Doping perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respect for self and other participants: the welfare and safety of other participants may be compromised by impaired judgment associated with the presence of cannabis in an athlete incompetition.Based upon all the above considerations, which included input from the Ethics and Athletic committees at WADA, it was concluded that cannabis use met the Spirit of Sport criterion.WADA emphasizes that prohibition of cannabis is in-competition only, which is defined as after 23:59 hours on the day prior to competition.The current decision limit of 180 ng/ml of Δ9-THC-COOH in urine and a cut-off of 150 ng/ml, plus the uncertainty of measurement of 30 ng/ml, takes this into account.Because of these high thresholds, primarily chronic, frequent cannabis users and athletes consuming high doses in-competition will be detected.Therefore, the cut-off generally will not affect the freedom of an athlete who wishes to legally consume cannabis outside of competition.Athletes who have a need for medicinal cannabis treatment should request a therapeutic use exemption (TUE).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".