Lifeworlds in pain: a principled method for investigation and intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experience of pain spans biological, psychological and sociocultural realms, both basic and complex, it is by turns necessary and devastating. Despite an extensive knowledge of the constituents of pain, the ability to translate this into effective intervention remains limited. It is suggested that current, multiscale, medical approaches, largely informed by the biopsychosocial (BPS) model, attempt to integrate knowledge but are undermined by an epistemological obligation, one that necessitates a prior isolation of the constituent parts. To overcome this impasse, we propose that an anthropological stance needs to be taken, underpinned by a Bayesian apparatus situated in computational psychiatry. Here, pain is presented within the context of lifeworlds, where attention is shifted away from the constituents of experience (e.g. nociception, reward processing and fear-avoidance), towards the dynamic affiliation that occurs between these processes over time. We argue that one can derive a principled method of investigation and intervention for pain from modelling approaches in computational psychiatry. We suggest that these modelling methods provide the necessary apparatus to navigate multiscale ontology and epistemology of pain. Finally, a unified approach to the experience of pain is presented, where the relational, inter-subjective phenomenology of pain is brought into contact with a principled method of translation; in so doing, revealing the conditions and possibilities of lifeworlds in pain.
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 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".