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
Svrha ovog istraživanja bila je ispitati ulogu razlicitih psiholoskih faktora, tocnije osobina licnosti, strategija suocavanja i zdravstvenog lokusa kontrole, u procjeni intenziteta boli kod osoba koje pate od kronicne boli te utvrditi jesu li razlicite strategije suocavanja s boli medijatori u odnosu između osobina licnosti i faktora zdravstvenog lokusa kontrole s jedne te percipiranog intenziteta boli s druge strane. Istraživanje je provedeno na uzorku od 292 sudionika koji pate od kronicne boli. Oni su ispunili set upitnika koji su ispitivali osobine licnosti (IPIP50, podljestvice neuroticizma i ekstraverzije), zdravstveni lokus kontrole (MHLC), strategije suocavanja s boli (CSQ-24) te percipirani intenzitet boli mjeren kratkom verzijom McGill upitnika boli (SF-MPQ) i verbalnom bodovnom ljestvicom. Rezultati su pokazali kako sudionici mlađe dobi, oni koji cesce uzimaju lijekove za smanjenje boli te oni koji su skloniji katastrofiranju prilikom suocavanja s njom u prosjeku doživljavaju vise intenzitete boli. Katastrofiranje se pokazalo i kao znacajan medijator u odnosu između neuroticizma i intenziteta boli mjerenog sa SF-MPQ te u odnosu između eksternalnog zdravstvenog lokusa kontrole (faktor snažni drugi) i intenziteta boli mjerenog verbalnom bodovnom ljestvicom.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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