MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382010932 · doi:10.1111/jep.13879

The experience of pain and its ontological modelling from a philosophical point of view: Phenomenological description and ontological revision of the McGill Pain Questionnaire

2023· article· en· W4382010932 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roberta Lanfredini, Letizia Cipriani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsMcGill Pain QuestionnaireOntologyPoint (geometry)PhenomenonEpistemologySubject (documents)PsychologyNatural (archaeology)Phenomenological methodMedicinePhilosophyComputer sciencePhysical therapyHistoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the article is to identify, on the basis of the phenomenological and ontological analysis of the experience of pain and the ways in which this experience is expressed in natural language, an ontological modelling of the language of pain and, at the same time, a revision of the traditional version of the McGill questionnaire. The purpose is to provide a different characterisation and an adequate evaluation of the phenomenon of pain, and, consequently, an effective measure of the actual experience of the suffering subject.

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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.284
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.284
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.270
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207