MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964899388 · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00007-6

Cognitive modulation of pain: how do attention and emotion influence pain processing?

2002· review· en· W1964899388 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPromMcGill Pain QuestionnaireCognitionPsychologyUnit (ring theory)MedicineAnesthesiaAudiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anesthesia Research Unit and Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada *Corresponding author. McGill University, Anesthesia Research Unit, 3655 Prom. Sir William Osler, Room 1220, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1Y6. Tel.: +1-514-398-3493; fax: +1-514-398-8241 E-mail: [email protected] Submitted December 19, 2001; accepted December 20, 2001.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.265 · 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