Counterfactual (‘if only’) thinking in women with chronic widespread pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study explored the counterfactual thinking that women with chronic and widespread pain showed in response to what they themselves considered to be particularly stressful situations. Counterfactual thinking in 125 women sick‐listed due to chronic and widespread pain was investigated in terms of structure, function and control focus. The women were asked, for each of three types of problems that they indicated in a questionnaire to affect them most strongly, to describe a typical occurrence of it and to complete a counterfactual sentence in connection with it of the type ‘If only . . .’. The majority of counterfactuals pertained to predominantly somatic problems (e.g. musculo‐skeletal problems, pain and fatigue) classified as being affective rather than preparative and self‐focused rather than external, whereas in counterfactuals relating to predominantly psychological/psychosocial problems a preparative function and an external focus were more prominent. The numbers of problems listed and the numbers of situations responded to counterfactually were positively correlated. The counterfactuals, although often related to somatic problems, generally concerned psychological or psychosocial matters such as finances and paid or unpaid work. A contextual approach to elucidating counterfactual thinking based on subjects' own experiences is seen as providing valuable insight into what bothers them most. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".