A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating a Pain Training for Respite Workers Supporting Children With Disabilities Part Two: Training Evaluations and the Impact of Training on Knowledge Application
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
Within a parallel-group randomized control trial, pain training's impact on Respite Workers' (RW) care approaches and training evaluations was explored. RW (n = 158) from 14 organizations received pain or control training following randomization. Researchers were blind until randomization; allocations were not shared explicitly with organizations/participants. Participants completed a strategy use questionnaire immediately before and an evaluation immediately after training completion. Four-to-6 weeks later, participants completed the strategy use questionnaire and semistructured focus groups. No differences in pain approaches were noted in strategy use questionnaires. Per focus groups, both groups acquired a "knowing" about pain and applied pain-related care approaches in similarly. Pain training participants identified need for "growing and strengthening" pain knowledge. Training endorsements were favorable. RW pain training has value and may impact practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it