Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We are somewhat baffled by Dr. Wolfe, el al ’s allegation that our editorial critique1 of their recent paper2 is part of an ongoing opposition to the 2010 American College of Rheumatology Preliminary Diagnostic Criteria for Fibromyalgia. This seems odd, given that we independently validated those criteria3. Indeed, in contradistinction to Dr. Wolfe’s claim, we reviewed that paper and recommended “acceptance with revision.” Notwithstanding these facts, Dr. Wolfe went on to inaccurately criticize our paper’s methodology, and had to retract his mistake in an Erratum published in Arthritis and Rheumatology 4. Our editorial, solicited by the editor, provides constructive comments, and should be viewed in that light. This is the accepted scientific method for the progressive advancement of knowledge5. Our editorial stated that the Polysymptomatic Distress Scale (PSD) relies on the 19-point Widespread Pain Index (WPI) component as its primary assessment of pain. Wolfe, et al retorted that the WPI pain count “is not a primary assessment of pain” and that “we do not want people to use the WPI to measure pain severity.” Was this a misreading of the editorial? We did not say that the WPI is a primary assessment of pain, but that the PSD relies primarily on … Address correspondence to Dr. R. Friend, 2347 NW Overton St., Portland, Oregon 97210, USA. E-mail: ronald.friend{at}stonybrook.edu
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.055 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".