Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an argument for framing chronic pain within a complex adaptive systems (CAS) paradigm. The first aim of this article is to demonstrate how chronic pain can be framed as a CAS and how paradox, one of the core characteristics of a CAS, exists within the chronic pain experience. The second aim is to illustrate how paradox exists at multiple levels within the health care encounter and ongoing experience of chronic pain. Finally, the article will use the example of interactions at the patient/clinician level to illustrate how health care workers' efforts to deal with issues emergent from the range of paradoxes have for the most part been ineffective, and at times harmful, to persons experiencing chronic pain. This article uses the example of chronic pain to explore how the manner in which health care providers and patients recognize and deal with paradoxes can either worsen the pain experience or help generate creative new ways to manage the chronic pain condition. The CAS principles discussed in this article hold application across a range of chronic conditions for which a traditional biomedical paradigm proves insufficient.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".