MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Percepção de mulheres submetidas à mastectomia sobre o apoio social

2012· article· pt· W1945543821 on OpenAlexaff
Mara Cristina Ribeiro Furlan, Jaqueline Bernardi, Antonia Marques Vieira, Maria Carolina Carvalho dos Santos, Sônia Silva Marcon

Bibliographic record

VenueCiência Cuidado e Saúde · 2012
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicWomen's cancer prevention and management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association for Co-operative Education
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial supportMastectomyThematic analysisCoping (psychology)SpiritualityRehabilitationPsychologyQualitative researchBreast cancerContent analysisPerceptionMedicinePsychotherapistCancerAlternative medicineSociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to understand the perception of women who underwent mastectomy concerning social support in coping with breast cancer and mastectomy. This is a descriptive-qualitative study, carried out with three women residing in Manoel Ribas-PR, who were submitted to mastectomy. Data were collected in May 2011 through semi-structured interview and treated according to the analysis of thematic content, showing the following categories: “Family, friends and community: a complex network of social support”, which demonstrates the importance of support from these groups in the recovery of women with mastectomy, and “Faith and Spirituality: support for the relief of pain and hope of rehabilitation”, which refers to spirituality as a relief in times of stress related to treatment. Health professionals should provide a support network for women and their families, playing an important role both in care and on the recovery of these women, offering psychological support and care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCiência Cuidado e SaúdeSame topicWomen's cancer prevention and managementFrench-language works237,207