MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108697719 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/25.5.301

Everyday Pain Responses in Children With and Without Developmental Delays

2000· article· en· W2108697719 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDistressDevelopmental psychologyObservational studyClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether children with developmental delays respond to painful events differently than nondelayed children. METHODS: Sixty families participated. Children between the ages of 2 and 6 years were observed at daycare centers while engaged in usual daily activities, such as free play. Spontaneous painful incidents and the child's responses were recorded using an observational measure (Dalhousie Everyday Pain Scale) designed to capture pain behavior. RESULTS: Children with developmental delays (n = 24) displayed a less intense distress response to an equivocal pain event than nondelayed children (n = 36). Children with developmental delays were more likely to display no reaction following a pain event, whereas children without delays cried more often. Further, children with developmental delays engaged in fewer help-seeking behaviors and were less likely to display a social response following a pain event than nondelayed children. CONCLUSIONS: Children with developmental delays appear to react in a different manner to pain events than nondelayed children do; we discuss a possible socio-communicative deficit.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · 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