Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sports must protect athletes from physical and psychological harm, while ensuring fair competition.Sport ethics includes improving athlete safety (preventing injuries, supporting concussion management), athlete well-being (mental performance), and human rights (freedom from discrimination).Increasingly, freedom from sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or questioning status of citizenship, marriage, or class are ethical objectives of all those involved in sports.Sports ethics is situated within a broader sphere of bioethics as the interdisciplinary concerns of athlete wellbeing are prioritised through addressing doping [1], the morality of fighting [2], perspectives on social justice within sports for development [3,4,5], geopolitics related to sportswashing and government corruption [6,7], aesthetic judging [8,9], sex testing [10,11,12,13], racial abuse [14], and fraud [15] to name a few.These issues are important as sports play a significant role not only in the lives of athletes, coaches, and administrators, but for billions of other people (in)directly involved in recreational, competitive, and high-performance competition as fans, employees in the sport industry, facility developers, urban planners, those affected by sport-related climate change, and medical professionals.The medical establishment is deeply implicated in the ethical construction of the sporting body.It is often doctors and clinicians who decide whether an athlete is legitimate, eligible, properly categorised, or healthy enough to compete.Medical professionals, also situated within a bioethical framework, have always been devoted to protecting patients from physical and psychological harm.However, those devoted to serving athletes and improving human performance are facing new dilemmas in light of the changing dynamics of sport: "[a]lthough governed by professional boards and organizational codes of ethics, sports medicine professionals are challenged by the conflicts of interest between paternalistic care for the athlete and autonomous decisions often influenced by stakeholders other than the athletes themselves" [16: p 5, 17].For instance, a decision on whether an injured athlete can return to play is undoubtedly a medical decision, but the best interest of the athlete might become compromised by the needs of sports management and the industry.The issue of dual loyalty to the patient/ athlete and the client/organisation puts the medical professional at the centre of sport ethics [18].Also, an athlete's changing, injured, or disabled body has to be diagnosed, categorised, and labelled by an expert medical professional for fitness to play [19].Gender is fixed in a binary fashion by medical and sport experts, even in the face of non-binary evidence [10,11].Martial arts and combat sport examinations, doping regulations, and weigh-ins place body measurement and professional medical expertise at the centre of sport.Understanding how sport has changed medical practice, how it has impacted healthcare delivery, and how sports medicine professionals, researchers, clinicians, and leaders can facilitate awareness of sport ethics is of critical importance in upholding the integrity of the professional social contract.Including and beyond these specific body and medical concerns, this editorial illustratively explores ethical issues in sports, globally and in India, focusing on power and social concerns more broadly.We introduce the special theme issue articles, which offer those whose primary concern is medical ethics some points to consider, regarding how sport can be made fair and empowering, and how to protect the health of all bodies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".