MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766536590 · doi:10.1080/24740527.2017.1399053

A scoping review on the study of siblings in pediatric pain

2017· review· en· W2766536590 on OpenAlexafffund
Meghan G. Schinkel, Christine T. Chambers, Jill A. Hayden, Abbie Jordan, Justine Dol, Kristen S. Higgins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Pain · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSociety of Pediatric Psychology
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOSiblingObservational studyContext (archaeology)Clinical psychologyPsychologyMEDLINEQualitative researchChronic painMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPhysical therapyPsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: Sibling research in pediatric pain has been primarily focused on the biological/physical components of pain, using quantitative approaches. Conducting more studies using qualitative or mixed-methods designs, incorporating multiple assessment measures (e.g., observational, self-report) and multiple perspectives (e.g., siblings, health professionals), may provide an opportunity to gain richer and more comprehensive information regarding the experience of siblings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PainSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207