MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018228302 · doi:10.1177/1054773804265692

An Exploration of Seniors' Ability to Report Pain

2004· article· en· W2018228302 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nursing Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRating scaleCognitive impairmentCognitionPain assessmentPhysical therapyMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPain managementPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of a group of elderly residents to use self-report methods to measure their pain in an accurate fashion. Using a comparative descriptive design, completion rates of three pain assessment tools and the self-report skills of a sample of 130 long-term care residents with varying levels of cognitive impairment were evaluated. The majority of residents with mild to moderate cognitive impairment were able to complete at least one of the verbal pain assessment tools, with the Present Pain Intensity and Numerical Rating Scales being the preferred choices for use in clinical settings. However, the Faces Pain Scale appeared to be more challenging for residents to complete, suggesting that it requires further testing before it can be recommended for clinical use.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.310 · 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