MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067756665 · doi:10.1037/1099-9809.10.1.81

Patterns of Pain Descriptor Usage in African Americans and European Americans With Chronic Pain.

2004· article· en· W2067756665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey E. Cassisi, Masataka Umeda, Julie A. Deisinger, Christine E. Sheffer, Kenneth R. Lofland, Cheryl Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueCultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupMcGill Pain QuestionnaireVisual analogue scaleExploratory factor analysisChronic painAfrican americanPsychologyAsian americansMexican americansFactor (programming language)Physical therapyPsychometricsClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryAnthropologyEthnologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined ethnic differences in the use of pain descriptors, comparing standardized pain assessment data from African American and European American patients with heterogeneous chronic pain syndromes. The measure was the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) including the embedded Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Exploratory factor analyses of SF-MPQ data identified differences in factor structure with the VAS loading on a different factor for each group. A 5-factor solution was obtained from the African American group and a 4-factor solution was obtained from the European American group. There was little overlap in the pattern matrices for African American and European American groups. Results suggest that the VAS is as sensitive to ethnic differences as other traditional pain measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority PsychologySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207