Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Nearly 400 years ago, René Descartes proposed a model of pain perception that characterized pain as a purely physical phenomenon, devoid of psychologic influence. The characterization of pain as an exclusively sensory (or experiential) phenomenon continues to dominate current conceptualizations of pain. METHODS: This paper advances the view that the exclusive focus on pain sensation or experience as the essential feature of the pain system has given rise to conceptual frameworks that are incomplete and flawed. It is argued that individuals with pain differ from individuals without pain not only in how they "feel" but they differ in how they "behave." RESULTS: Arguments are put forward advocating for a biopsychomotor conceptualization of pain where pain behaviors are construed as integral components of the pain system. The biopsychomotor model proposes that at least 3 partially independent behavioral subsystems are integral components of pain. These include communicative pain behaviors, protective pain behaviors, and social response behaviors. Evidence is reviewed suggesting that different dimensions of pain behavior are functionally distinct, and questions are raised about the nature of motor programs responsible for the elicitation and maintenance of different forms of pain behavior. DISCUSSION: Clinical and theoretical implications of a biopsychomotor conceptualization of pain are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".