Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I discuss the theme concerning the experience of pain by comparing three different theoretical perspectives: the cognitivist and reductionist approach most widely adopted at present within the neuro-sciences, as it is offered by P. and P. Churchland’s works; the hermeneutical approach offered by H.-G. Gadamer’s reflection; finally, a possible phenomenological conception grounded on E. Husserl’s and M. Scheler’s theses. The paper aims to show, through a discussion of the present-day evaluation and measurement methods of subjective experience of pain and its objectivation by means of questionnaires (McGill Pain Questionnaire), that in order to adequately understand, from a medical and philosophical standpoint, the complexity of painful experience, it is necessary to avoid a reductionist approach, and to open the investigation to the subjective structure, at the same time avoiding falling back into dualism derived by an opposition between physical explanation and hermeneutical understanding. While therefore the eliminativist and reductionist approach fails to make room for the subjectivity of painful experience, and Gadamer’s hermeneutics remains without knowing it within Cartesian dualism, phenomenology seems to be able to open up a path towards the experience of felt/feeling corporeity, seen as a structural basis for an incarnated yet non-reductionist conception of bodily suffering.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".