Beyond the study of pain: the evolving role of the International Association for the Study of Pain in global advocacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Although founded on the basis of the study of pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has actively advocated for improving pain relief and access to pain management in a variety of ways. The Global Year was launched in 2004 and has continued with a different theme each year, and "Pain Awareness Month" is held every September. The Declaration of Montreal (2010) emphasized that access to pain management is a fundamental human right as a result from the IASP-hosted International Pain Summit. The IASP has continued to publish timely statements related to pain and pain management. The work of IASP on the 11th version of the International Classification of Disease has ensured that chronic pain is recognized as a disease in its own right, and the establishment of the Global Alliance of Partners for Pain Advocacy Task Force recognizes the importance of engaging people with lived experience of pain in accomplishing IASP's mission. The Working Group on Global Advocacy now spearheads IASP's global efforts in capacity building to ensure that pain advocacy activities will continue to grow.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".