Impacto motivacional evocado por imagens de movimento do ombro em participantes com dor no ombro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivational Impact Evoked by Shoulder Movement Images in Participants with Shoulder PainBackground: Emotional factors can modulate shoulder pain.Emotions are organized around defensive and appetitive motivational systems.Visual stimuli can trigger aversive responses.This article includes two studies.In study 1, we identified representative pictures of movements involving the shoulder.In Study 2, we compared the motivational impact of pictures on people with chronic shoulder pain and asymptomatic controls. Methods:In Study 1, an expert panel selected relevant items for investigation among people with shoulder pain based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).Pictures were chosen to represent the items.A representative sample of people judged if the pictures matched the item description.In Study 2, we used the pictures selected in Study 1 and the International Affective Picture System (IAPS).We used the Self-Assessment Manikin to compare the motivational impact between chronic shoulder pain and a control group.The chronic shoulder pain group answered questions on the fear judgement, avoidance, and belief of harm evoked by pictures.Results: The protocol consisted of 58 pictures.The repeated-measures ANOVA for valence revealed a main effect between the shoulder pain group and the control [F(1,9)=24.81;p<0.005], but there was no effect on the arousal response [F(1,9)=2,00; p<0,190].Conclusions: The pictures identified represent daily situations related that should be considered relevant in the assessment of people with shoulder pain.The shoulder pain group judged shoulder pictures more aversive.This result suggests that people with chronic shoulder pain may show avoidance behavior toward the movements in shoulder pictures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".