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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain interferes with the functioning of typical children, but no study has examined its effect on children with pre-existing intellectual disabilities (ID). METHODS: Caregivers of 63 children observed their children for 2-h periods and recorded in 1-week diaries: pain presence, cause, intensity and duration. Caregivers also recorded the children's performance of pre-existing skills during each period. Proportion of skills displayed when pain was present and absent was compared. Fifty caregivers completed a second set of observations when pain was present and absent. RESULTS: Comparison of the first set of observations indicated children displayed significantly more abilities (64%) when pain-free (Pain-Free Day 1), than when pain was present (54%; Pain Day 1). Children displayed 64% of their possible abilities during Pain-Free Day 2, but only 53% during Pain Day 2. Pain impacted all areas of function (communication, daily living, social and motor skills). Children's physical and demographic characteristics did not moderate the impact of pain on function, but functioning of children with more severe ID was most impacted by pain. CONCLUSIONS: Children perform fewer adaptive skills when pain is present. This could affect long-term functioning as well, through reduced practice of skills.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it