Coping with chronic pain: Current advances and practical information for clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transferring knowledge and evidence from the pain psychology literature to all types of practitioners is one small but important step towards reducing the economic and personal cost of injuries. Through early identification of at-risk clients, it may be possible to prevent chronic pain from developing. Pain is a perception which is affected by physical, psychological and social factors, yet many health care professionals are only beginning to consider the relative contributions of each of these elements. It is essential that clinicians understanding of how a client's pain coping strategies impact progress and functional outcomes. For clients endorsing maladaptive methods of coping, one step is to refer the client to a psychologist; however, understanding of key underlying principles can also inform any type of treatment. All care providers involved with the client should discourage maladaptive strategies where appropriate and encouraging adaptive ones. Of equal importance is knowing whether or not the client is ready to adapt to change. Clinician knowledge of coping strategies and readiness may also help reduce the likelihood of clients withdrawing from treatment in frustration. The end result will hopefully be less disability and improved functioning of clients experiencing chronic pain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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.
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".