ANÁLISE COMPARATIVA DE DOIS MODELOS DE AVALIAÇÃO DE DOR MÚSCULO ESQUELÉTICA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introducao Os relatos da luta do homem contra a dor existem desde o inicio da nossa existencia. No Brasil, as afeccoes do aparelho locomotor sao as causas mais frequentes de dor. A mensuracao da dor e considerada pelos profissionais atuantes na area da saude um grande desafio. Essa mensuracao pode ser dividida em unidimensionais (Escala verbal, Escala numerica, Escala visual analogica, Escala de face.), como multidimensionais (Questionario de dor de McGill. A teoria dos sistemas nebulosos (Fuzzy Systems Theory), tambem conhecida como logica nebulosa, e utilizada para interpretar o modo aproximado de raciocinio humano, leva-lo para um formato numerico e obter respostas em ambiente de incertezas que servem de subsidio a tomada de decisao. A Escala Fuzzy de Avaliacao de Dor Musculo Esqueletica (FUMPS) apresenta se como um metodo acessivel, simples, rapido e abrangente que pode vir a ser uma alternativa eficiente no atendimento ao pacientes com dor.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".