MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130964851 · doi:10.1177/13634593030074005

Putting Pain to Paper: Endometriosis and the Documentation of Suffering

2003· article· en· W2130964851 on OpenAlex
Emma Whelan

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationEndometriosisAffect (linguistics)MedicineDiseasePhysical therapyPsychologyPain assessmentPain managementComputer scienceGynecologyPathologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the elusive and subjective nature of pain has been examined in compelling ways in health studies, the implications for systems of pain documentation and measurement remain relatively unexplored. Two systems for the documentation of pain symptoms in women with endometriosis are examined, one developed by a gynaecological association and the other by a woman with the disease. All pain documentation systems must contend with a fundamental problem: that they permit the comparison only of accounts of pain, not of pains themselves. These two instruments shift attention away from the pain itself to evaluations of the perspectives of those accounting for and evaluating pain. It is argued that systems of pain measurement and documentation, rather than offering objective readings of pain, must be seen as the products of epistemological communities with particular interests, aims and methods which affect the construction of pain and its subjects.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.413 · 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