Bibliographic record
Abstract
is an unpleasant sensation associated with the desire to scratch. The good: a useful purpose of itch is to warn that insects, itchy plants or parasites have invaded the skin, and scratching removes them. Itchy allergic reactions warn to avoid the offending food or skin contact. Scratching to relieve itch is often pleasurable, possibly because scratching excites nerves that convey "pleasant touch". The less good: Like yawning, itch is contagious: watching someone suffering from itch elicits sensations of itch in the viewer. Interestingly, contagious itch activates the same brain areas as itch evoked by a histamine skin-prick test. The bad: Persistent itch often accompanies skin conditions such as eczema, or liver, kidney and other diseases, and represents a major medical and socioeconomic burden worldwide. Chronic itch does not serve a useful purpose and reduces the quality of life, sometimes to the point of suicide. Chronic itch is very poorly treated; antihistamines are usually ineffective, and there is an unmet for improved therapy. The ugly: In extreme cases, neurological disorders cause itch and excessive scratching that damages the skin. A remarkable patient with post-herpetic itch scratched through her skull to expose the brain. In this case, the pain normally evoked by scratching was absent and thus unable to halt further scratching. A positive note: Recent scientific advances are uncovering mechanisms by which receptors in the skin detect itchy substances, and how itch is relayed to the brain, thus identifying targets for improved treatments that reduce or block abnormal itch.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".