“Play!”: Combatting Pathocentric Epistemic Injustice in Chronic Pain Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epistemic injustice is an analytical framework that is used to describe a wrong done to someone in their capacity as a knower. Epistemic injustice is well-documented across the healthcare spectrum, particularly in relation to the patient’s capacity to understand, and thus derive meaning from, the experience of illness. This article contributes to the body of scholarship exploring how to achieve pathocentric epistemic justice by way of ethnographic case study. Findings draw on fieldwork conducted at a small, publicly funded chronic pain clinic. At MB clinic, pain care is delivered in a group setting. Patients and doctor exhibit a playful attitude: they lean into uncertainty, tell jokes, and eschew the concept of mastery. This produces an epistemic environment that departs from the kind critiqued in studies wherein epistemic injustice is present. By way of case study, this article provides support for the broad claim that there is a link between playfulness and epistemic well-being. Therefore, playfulness may be applied as a strategy to combat pathocentric epistemic injustice.
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 | 0.050 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".