MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978122606 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182387fed

Catastrophizing and Perceived Injustice

2011· article· en· W1978122606 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Sullivan, Heather Adams, Marc O. Martel, Whitney Scott, Timothy H. Wideman

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInjusticeSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. The article will summarize research that has supported the role of pain catastrophizing and perceived injustice as risk factors for problematic recovery after whiplash injury. Objective. This article focuses on two psychological variables that have been shown to impact on recovery trajectories after whiplash injury; namely pain catastrophizing and perceived injustice. Summary of Background Data. Research has shown that psychological variables play a role in determining the trajectory of recovery after whiplash injury. Methods. This article will focus on two psychological variables that have been shown to impact on recovery trajectories after whiplash injury; namely pain catastrophizing and perceived injustice. The article will summarize research that has supported the role of pain catastrophizing and perceived injustice as risk factors for problematic recovery after whiplash injury. Results. Several investigations have shown that measures of catastrophizing and perceived injustice prospectively predict problematic trajectories of recovery after whiplash injury. Basic research points to the potential roles of expectancies, attention, coping and endogenous opioid dysregulation as possible avenues through which catastrophizing might heighten the probability of the persistence of pain after whiplash injury. Although research has yet to systematically address the mechanisms by which perceived injustice might contribute to prolonged disability in individuals with whiplash injuries, there are grounds for suggesting the potential contributions of catastrophizing, pain behavior and anger. Conclusion. A challenge for future research will be the development and evaluation of risk factor–targeted interventions aimed at reducing catastrophizing and perceived injustice to improve recovery trajectories after whiplash injury. Numerous investigations have shown that measures of catastrophizing and perceived injustice prospectively predict problematic recovery trajectories after whiplash injury. A challenge for future research will be the development and evaluation of risk factor-targeted interventions aimed at reducing catastrophizing and perceived injustice to improve recovery trajectories after whiplash injury.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations118
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207