MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014616953 · doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000000814

Response to Dr. Bernstein

2020· article· en· W3014616953 on OpenAlexaff
Murat Aydede

Bibliographic record

VenuePAIN Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterexampleMeaning (existential)Interpretation (philosophy)EpistemologyMathematicsPhilosophyLinguisticsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Bernstein seems to claim that my proposed reformulation of the IASP definition of pain is ambiguous. “Ambiguous” means, roughly, “having more than one interpretation or meaning.” I don't see how my proposal is ambiguous in this sense. Counterexamples and exceptions are important—a successful taxonomic definition should ideally be free of them. The examples Dr. Bernstein gives as counterexamples are not actually counterexamples that pose difficulties for my proposed restatement of the current IASP definition. Finally, Dr. Bernstein's own proposal fails to be a taxonomic definition postulating only a correspondence as it does between pains and certain kinds of experiences—not to mention other problems with it. Disclosures The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePAIN ReportsSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207