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
The aim of this study was to develop a human experimental bone pain model. Fourteen healthy men were included in two study sessions. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was estimated using probes of different sizes. Computer-controlled and hand-held algometry were applied to the skin area covering right and left medial tibia before and after local anaesthesia (LA) of the skin and reproducibility was evaluated. Pain experience (McGill questionnaire) was compared between healthy volunteers and 12 patients with vertebral fractures. Computer-controlled algometer: No differences in PPT between study sessions for 6 and 8-mm probes (p = 0.43 and 0.32) were seen. There was a difference in PPT before and after LA for the 6-mm probe (p = 0.008), but not for the 8-mm probe (p = 0.26). Hand-held algometer: A difference in PPT between study sessions was observed for 4- and 8-mm probes (p = 0.03 and 0.007), but not for 2, 6 and 10-mm probes (p = 0.19, 0.05 and 0.25). No differences in PPT were seen before and after LA for 2, 4, 8 and 10-mm probes (p = 0.35, 0.15, 0.08 and 0.53), but LA significantly influenced PPT with the 6-mm probe (p = 0.01). Similar words were chosen in the McGill pain questionnaire by healthy volunteers and patients, qualitatively describing the deep pain sensation. The pain evoked by hand-held algometer and the 2-mm probe was not influenced by LA, and PPT was reproducible between sessions and is recommended for studies of experimentally evoked bone-associated pain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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