Anti-Doping Laws In India; An Analysis Of Institution And Liability Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The organisational and liability mechanisms supporting India's anti-doping regulations are thoroughly examined in this essay. The paper explores the development of India's anti-doping laws within a worldwide framework with an emphasis on upholding sports' integrity and guaranteeing fair play. It examines the roles and responsibilities of important parties, in particular the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), in putting these regulations into effect and enforcing them. The examination dives into the idea of strict liability, which is a cornerstone of anti-doping regulations and places the responsibility of ensuring that athletes' bodies are free of illegal substances on them. The essay assesses the effectiveness and fairness of this strategy by looking at instances of unintentional doping, tainted supplements, and the requirements of proof. The paper additionally looks at the intricate sample collecting, testing, and channels accessible to athletes for challenging negative results, as well as the procedural backdrop of anti-doping efforts in India. The study emphasises the necessity for a balanced strategy that respects both sports integrity and individual liberties by highlighting the dynamic interaction between anti-doping laws and fundamental rights.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".