Concept analysis of the nursing outcome Mobility in nursing patients with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed a concept analysis of the nursing outcome Mobility in patients with stroke. A literature review was conducted, through the online access to databases: Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Lilacs, using the descriptors: mobility, stroke, nursing and their synonyms in Portuguese and Spanish. 1.521 articles were identified, resulting in 49, after careful selection. Noteworthy are the articles published in Canada (26.7%), on 2001 (95.9%), by physiotherapists (34.6%), and in rehabilitation units (61.5%). The attributes identified for Mobility were: walking, standing, sitting, put the leg side to side, turn around, start and stop walking, stair climbing, motor function, and motor skill transfer. A model case and a contrary case were built, and identified, as antecedents: postural control and balance; and, as consequents: performs tasks inside and outside the house and wanders without difficulty. It was concluded that the concepts of Mobility found in this study need to be validated with experts in the field and in clinical practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".