MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400378067 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvae074

Breaking Boundaries: Exploring Performance Enhancement and Anti-Doping Testing in Sports

2024· article· en· W4400378067 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

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsWorld Anti-Doping Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChampionAgency (philosophy)Library scienceMedicineArt historyHistorySociologyLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doping in sports, a persistent challenge spanning centuries, reflects a continuous evolution in both the methods used by athletes to enhance their athletic performance and the relentless pursuit of anti-doping efforts to combat these practices. While modern awareness of doping has heightened, tracing its roots unveils a historical narrative entrenched in the pursuit of athletic excellence and the quest for an edge over competitors. The history of doping traces back millennia, finding its origins in ancient athletic competitions like the Olympic Games, where athletes resorted to potions and tonics in the pursuit of enhanced performance. Over time, this quest has persisted, evolving into the use of modern performance-enhancing drugs, such as stimulants and anabolic steroids. Despite the lessons drawn from history and concerted efforts to educate athletes about the health risks and promote fairness, the allure of these substances endures. At the forefront of this global battle against doping stands the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), established in 1999 to set and uphold standards in combating sports doping. With a mission to coordinate and promote the fight against doping, WADA accredits laboratories worldwide with presently 30 accredited labs spanning 27 countries. The anti-doping code of WADA is adopted by more than 600 sports organizations. WADA-accredited laboratories are utilized by international sports federations (e.g., Federation Internationale de Football Association), national anti-doping organizations, the International Paralympic and Olympic Committees that oversee the Paralympic/Olympic games, professional sports leagues (Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association), and other major sport event organizers that test athletes for doping. Oftentimes, athletes’ accomplishments, reputations, and the virtue of fair play depend on the results of urine or blood tests. Our esteemed panel of experts unravel the complexities surrounding doping in sports, examining the historical backdrop, contemporary challenges, and concerted efforts of the scientific community to safeguard the integrity of sports through anti-doping measures.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.258 · 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