Pain research from 1975 to 2007: A categorical and bibliometric meta-trend analysis of every Research Paper published in the journal, Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an attempt to characterize the nature of pain research, every one of the 4525 Research Papers published in the journal, Pain, from its inception until the end of 2007, was examined by a single individual using a consistent set of criteria, and was coded for its essential features in four domains: the purpose of the study (e.g., characterization of a pain syndrome, evaluation of the role of a molecule), the subjects of the study (patients, human "normals", animals), the pain states characterized or induced (clinical pain and experimental stimuli), and the dependent measures examined (e.g., behaviors, questionnaires, neural firing). For papers involving pain patients, the clinical conditions under study were coded as well. These categorical data were combined with bibliometric data obtained from citation databases. Together, the data allow an examination of 32-year trends in pain research, and comprise a data compendium fully searchable or sortable by any interested individual.
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 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 | 0.186 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.045 | 0.105 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".