MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391881452 · doi:10.3389/fspor.2024.1378777

Editorial: Athlete vulnerabilities and doping

2024· editorial· en· W4391881452 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Nolte, Angela Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sports and Active Living · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Research Topic comprises of six articles. It is not surprising that two of the articles relate to supplement use. Athlete supplement use has been regarded as a doping "gateway".Athlete's supplement consumption may increase doping risks through the development and acceptance of routine substance use to improve sporting performance (Barkoukis et al., 2015;Yager & Mclean, 2020). Furthermore, supplement use in athletes can also result in inadvertent doping due to supplement contamination or the uneducated use of supplements that contain prohibited substances. In the review by Yasuda et al. (2023) the authors summarize how the "meal first" strategy and planned supplement use are important for enhancing athletes' health and performance. The "meal first" strategy is recommended for athletes' conditioning, however there are a few instances when appropriate supplement use can be beneficial to athletes such in the case of nutrient deficiencies, inaccessibility of quality food during travel and difficulty preparing food due to societal restrictions, to mention a few (Yasudo et al., 2023). In a quantitative analysis of factors which influence supplement use and doping among adolescent athletes in New Zealand, Clancy et al. (2023) identified factors that decrease adolescent's chances of doping. To reduce the risk of doping, the researchers suggest attention should be given to increasing athlete's exposure to mastery as a confidence source, reducing focus on appearance and supporting volition/internally perceived locus of control (Clancy et al., 2023).When it comes to vulnerability to doping, vulnerability is not constant and can change during the athlete's sporting career or athlete pathway. Thus, it is also important to understand how vulnerability may change, and thus, when specific interventions may be necessary or beneficial to decrease vulnerability and potential doping violations. The results of the research by Veltmaat et al. (2023) showed that athletes believed that 'clean' and 'doping' athletes are not always distinguished by the values they hold. Therefore, all athletes can be vulnerable to doping at some point. Further strengthening the point of view that vulnerability is not constant. The researchers concluded that vulnerability is a balance between risks and protective factors in a complex interaction between environmental, personal and situational influences (Veltmaat et al., 2023).Educational interventions are another area of focus of the World Anti-doping Agency (WADA). Some research has shown that many athletes do not have sufficient knowledge regarding doping / anti-doping, which has significant consequences given the 'strict liability' rules. Lack of knowledge may then lead to possible doping violations. Murofushi et al.(2023) investigated subjective and objective anti-doping knowledge in Japanese University students and found that there was a discrepancy between subjective and objective anti-doping knowledge. Athletes perceived themselves to have adequate anti-doping knowledge however objective measures indicated otherwise. The researchers suggest targeted educational interventions to align subjective and objective anti-doping knowledge. Even if athletes recognize doping as wrongful, insufficient knowledge may inadvertently influence behavioral intentions, potentially leading to unintentional doping. The researchers also investigated the willingness to learn and objective anti-doping knowledge in the same cohort (Japanese University students) and found no relationship between willingness to learn and objective anti-doping knowledge. Although no relationship was determined in this study, the results did show that the athletes had insufficient knowledge regarding doping and that educational interventions were warranted (Murofushi et al., 2023).Lastly, an article by Pavot, 2023 further highlights the challenges and complex struggle to combat doping in sport and to ensure all athletes are able to compete within a fair environment. The article discusses the potential gap or lacuna in the World Anti-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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0150.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.025

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Sports and Active Living→Same topicDoping in Sports→French-language works237,207→