is A Critical Examination of the Involvement of Canadian High-Performance Athletes in the Development of Anti-Doping Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
f'->^ The use of certain performance enhancing substances and methods has been defined as a major ethical breach by parties involved in the governance of high-performance sport. As a result, elite athletes worldwide are subject to rules and regulations set out in international and national anti-doping policies. Existing literature on the development of policies such as the World Anti-Doping Code and The Canadian anti-Doping Program suggests a sport system in which athletes are rarely meaningfully involved in policy development (Houlihan, 2004a). Additionally, it is suggested that this lack of involvement is reflective of a similar lack of involvement in other areas of governance concerning athletes ' lives. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the history and current state of athletes ' involvement in the anti-doping policy process in Canada's high-performance sport system. It includes discussion and analysis of recently conducted interviews with those involved in the policy process as well as an analysis of relevant documents, including anti-doping policies. The findings demonstrate that Canadian
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".