Puppets as a strategy for communication with <scp>B</scp>razilian children with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children are considered competent social actors. Although they are able to express their opinions, they may have some difficulties in answering direct verbal questions, requiring researchers and health professionals to enter their world by using auxiliary resources for communication. This study presents the experience of using finger puppets as a playful strategy for improving interaction and communication with hospitalized children with cancer, aged seven to 12. It describes the strategy of making and using puppets as an auxiliary tool to communicate with children with cancer and presents the results and limitations of using puppets in clinical practice. The use of the puppets, creatively and in accordance with the children's motor, cognitive, and emotional development, showed benefits, such as allowing the children to freely express themselves; respecting their autonomy; and minimizing the hierarchical adult-child relationship. The use of puppets is an appropriate strategy to communicate with hospitalized children. This tool can also enrich clinical practice, as it encourages children with cancer to report their experience of being ill and also helps the health team during evaluation and intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".