Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his recent “Perspective” , Mark Lema does an excellent job of addressing the growing difficulties in providing high-quality pain care in the United States and those confronting the international movement, which aims for the universal recognition of pain relief as a fundamental human right. The latter campaign was officially launched on October 11, 2004 (“Global Day against Pain”) by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) and the European Federation of IASP Chapters with the World Health Organization at a joint meeting in Geneva. Its basic premise is that inappropriate treatment of pain is unethical and “susceptible to both legal and professional action” . More recently, as part of the 13th World Congress on Pain in Montreal, the International Pain Summit, hosted by the IASP in September 2010, the summit delegates from 129 countries supported a “Declaration that Access to Pain Management is a Fundamental Human Right” . Numerous professional organizations and individuals worldwide have since signed this declaration. Raising public awareness across the planet that being in pain is demeaning to the individual and requires “appropriate” treatment is certainly a cause worth fighting for and an important step toward civilization. However, upon examination of the current situation in the United States (the origin of many of the signatures of the Declaration), one cannot help believing that the entire project is a wishful thinking. As Dr. Lema so eloquently argues, providing pain care in this country is, increasingly, an ordeal. It is hard, therefore, for us to promote better pain treatment in other countries when we lack a working model of care at home. Practicing Pain Medicine at the present time in the United States, where the combined actions of the managed care companies, the government and industry conspire to destroy our means of existence and induce paranoia in physicians!
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
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".