MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233591147 · doi:10.12968/ijpn.2011.17.8.387

Development and Evaluation of the Pain Assessment in the Communicatively Impaired (PACI) tool: part I

2011· article· en· W4233591147 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Kaasalainen, Norma J. Stewart, Joan Middleton, S Knezacek, Terry Hartley, Christie Ife, Lara Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Palliative Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of VictoriaSaskatchewan Health AuthoritySaskatchewan PolytechnicUniversity of SaskatchewanRegina Qu'Appelle Health Region
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPain assessmentPalliative careMedicineClinical PracticeTest (biology)Pain managementPsychologyNursingPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pain is a common symptom for long-term care residents, particularly those in need of palliative care. However, pain assessment in residents who have communication limitations is challenging. A study was conducted with the aim of developing a pain assessment tool that could feasibly be used by direct care providers in long-term care with minimal training yet demonstrating strong psychometric properties. The study used both qualitative and quantitative methods to develop and test the Pain Assessment in the Communicatively Impaired (PACI) tool. Part I of this paper reports on the development phase; a forthcoming second part will report on the testing phase. The overall results of this study support the psychometric properties and feasibility of the PACI tool, offering preliminary support for its use in clinical 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Palliative NursingSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207