MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100313920

MacNevin, Rebecca Teacher perceptions 1 Running Head: TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF CHILDREN WITH HEADAHCE PAIN Teacher perceptions of children with recurrent headache pain

2011· article· en· W7100313920 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionVignetteAffect (linguistics)School teachersMedical schoolPain perception
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teachers ’ understanding of and response to students with recurrent pain may affect academic and pain related outcomes. This research examines the effect of communication from a medical professional on teacher perceptions of a student experiencing recurrent headache pain. Participants were 106 teachers (88 women and 18 men) from elementary, middle, and high schools in the Halifax Regional School Board and the Chignecto-Central Regional School Board [mean teaching experience = 11.75 years (SD = 8.39); mean grade level taught = 6.21 (SD = 3.41)]. Participants completed an online survey in which they were presented with a vignette describing a hypothetical student with headache pain. Fifty-five teachers were randomly assigned to read a letter from a hypothetical medical professional detailing the symptoms and effects of recurrent headache pain, whereas 51 teachers were randomly assigned to a control condition in which they were provided with basic information about the IWK Health Centre. Participants rated multiple dimensions of the student’s pain and provided open-ended responses regarding their current knowledge of pain, as well as areas in which they would

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→