MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010884418 · doi:10.1177/c10n4r8

Adult Patients' Postoperative Pain Descriptions and Responses to the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire

2001· article· en· W2010884418 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nursing Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMcGill Pain QuestionnaireMedicinePsychological interventionQuantitative sensory testingPhysical therapyPain catastrophizingClinical significanceSensory systemPsychologyChronic painPsychiatryVisual analogue scaleInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the clinical usefulness of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ). Thirty postoperative patients were asked to describe their postoperative pain and were then administered the SF-MPQ. Eighteen (60%) used exact SF-MPQ sensory or affective words or synonyms to describe their postoperative pain during the interview. These results provide further evidence of the clinical relevance of the SF-MPQ sensory and affective scales. Pain descriptions by patients that go beyond pain intensity descriptions may communicate more precise information about the pain and lead to more effective pain interventions. Patients with difficulty describing their pain might be assisted by using the SF-MPQ.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.378 · 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