MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cómo se siente el dolor no depende de la lesión corporal

2021· article· es· W3215910024 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Fajardo-Chica

Bibliographic record

VenueDiánoia Revista de Filosofía · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La experiencia del dolor suele caracterizarse por su temporalidad, localización, intensidad, por qué tan desagradable se experimenta y la manera particular en el que se siente (como “caliente”, “un latigazo”, “profundo” u “hormigueante”). Estas últimas son las cualidades sensoriales del dolor (csd). Discuto aquí la tesis representacionista según la cual las csd se explican por un contenido mental que describe la naturaleza del daño corporal. Desarrollo dos argumentos en contra de la regularidad que tal tesis supone entre las csd y la naturaleza de la lesión, y presento evidencia a partir del “Cuestionario del dolor de McGill”, un instrumento clínico para la comunicación del dolor. Concluyo que la lesión corporal y las cualidades sensoriales del dolor no covarían como supone esta forma de representacionismo.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiánoia Revista de FilosofíaSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207