MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404049562 · doi:10.1111/sms.14753

Fair and Safe Eligibility Criteria for Women's Sport: The Proposed Testing Regime Is Not Justified, Ethical, or Viable

2024· letter· en· W4404049562 on OpenAlexaff
Alun G. Williams, Shane M. Heffernan, Adam J. Herbert, Blair Hamilton, Francisco J. Sánchez, Sasha Gollish, Adam Rutherford, Hugh Montgomery, Mike McNamee, Silvia Camporesi, Jonathan Ospina‐Betancurt, Niall Timothy Fife, Luke Cox, Richard I. G. Holt, Yannis Pitsiladis, Fernanda R. Malinsky, Fergus Guppy, Madeleine Pape, Éric Vilain, Roger A. Pielke, N. Timothy Cable, Sarah Chantler, Stuart M. Phillips, Georgina K. Stebbings

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesCompetition (biology)Competitor analysisElitePopulationTransgenderPsychologyDisorders of sex developmentPolitical scienceDemographyLawMedicineBusinessSociologyMarketingPhysical therapyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an invited editorial, Tucker et al. [1] addressed the eligibility controversy regarding the Paris 2024 Olympic boxing competition. They cited Lundberg et al. [2] concerning the in/eligibility of transgender women for the female sports category and identified performance differences between males and females alongside studies involving testosterone suppression. Several authors of the present letter also co-authored Lundberg et al. [2] and stand by that paper, but declined co-authorship of Tucker et al.'s editorial [1] and present here, with additional collaborators, challenges to that editorial.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0240.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in SportsSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207