The Impact and Regulation of Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) have been repeatedly banned in sport for a variety of reasons. The use of PEDs not only violates sports ethics but also creates serious health risks for athletes, such as cardiovascular injuries and mental disorders. In particular, the systematic use of PEDs in some countries or regions with the support of coaches and the state undermines the integrity and fairness of sports, and at the same time, can be detrimental to the sports economy. Although education on the prohibition of PED use is currently very widespread and has raised awareness of the dangers of PED use, the current education system fails to address psychological stressors such as failure anxiety. To further increase awareness of the prohibition of PED use, this review calls for multifaceted reforms, including evidence-based education for youth, advanced detection technologies (e.g., blockchain), and institutional accountability for federations and sponsors. These measures aim to shift the culture of sport towards integrity and athlete well-being rather than performance shortcuts.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it