Student Expectations of Peer and Teacher Reactions to Students With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Social interactions can influence the experience and impact of chronic pain. Children and adolescents expectations of how others respond to them could therefore influence their adjustment to pain. This study examined how children and adolescents expected their peers and teachers would react to classmates with chronic pain. METHODS: 211 school children participated in this study. We presented each participant 1 of 4 vignettes that described a boy or a girl who did or did not have chronic pain. Participants were then asked to describe how they think other children and their teachers would react to the child depicted in the vignette with respect to solicitous, discouraging, and coping responses. RESULTS: Discouraging responses from peers and teachers were viewed as being relatively unlikely. However, both coping and solicitous responses-the latter being a response known to be linked to increased pain and disability in children and adults-were viewed by the participating children as being relatively likely. Moreover, the expected likelihood of solicitous responses from teachers was thought to be even more probable for children and adolescents with chronic pain than for those without chronic pain. DISCUSSION: The results of this study have important practical implications, given the well-known importance of significant other's responses to chronic pain problems. Further research is needed to understand how social interactions at school may influence functioning of children with chronic pain and their development. This information could provide an important empirical basis for determining how best to manage individuals with chronic pain problems in the school setting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".