A Troubling Story: Insurance and Medical Research in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is standard teaching that medicine and health care function in a social setting, and the pain literature is full of material on social and psychological factors. In Pain Research & Management, we drew attention to the impact of social influences on medical thinking and the readiness with which sections of the medical profession sided with paymasters for insurance companies (1). At that time, we were well aware of the most troubling story in decades in the fields of pain, insurance and medical research (2,3). In her commentary in this issue of Pain Research & Management, Lorie Terry (pages 101 to 106) provides information about why the scientific commentators have been radically critical of an article by Cassidy et al, published in The New England Journal of Medicine (2), on the basis of both internal evidence and additional information that accrued, some of which was available at the time of the article′s publication and some of which subsequently became public.
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 | 0.019 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".