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 objectives of the study were to (1) assess the extent to which interrater reliability of pain drawing location and dispersion scoring methods are similar across pain disciplines in a sample of patients with cancer treatment‐induced neuropathic pain ( N = 56); and (2) investigate indicators of validity of the pain drawing in this unique sample. Patients undergoing cancer therapy completed the Brief Pain Inventory Body Map, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Intraclass correlation coefficients among medical and psychology professionals ranged from .93 to 99. Correlations between pain drawing score and symptom burden severity ranged from .29 to 39; correlations between pain drawing score and symptom burden interference ranged from .28 to 34. Patients who endorsed pain in the hands and feet more often described their pain as electric, numb, and shooting than patients without pain in the hands and feet. They also endorsed significantly more descriptors of neuropathic pain. Results suggest a similar understanding among members of a multidisciplinary pain team as to the location and dispersion of pain as represented by patients’ pain drawings. In addition, pain drawing scores were related to symptom burden severity and interference and descriptors of neuropathic pain in expected ways.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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