AÇÕES DE PROMOÇÃO DA SAÚDE REALIZADAS POR ENFERMEIROS NA AVALIAÇÃO DO CRESCIMENTO E DESENVOLVIMENTO INFANTIL
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aimed to identify the actions of health promotion by nurses in the assessment of child growth and development and to analyze them as core competencies of health promotion recommended by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Carried out a integrative review of five databases, using a combination of the terms: growth and development, child health promotion and nursing. Proceeded to the analysis of articles 10 in its entirety. The authors pointed out that nursing actions are well diversified and relate to measures of research, assessment and /or interventions, however they only emphasize on the nutritional aspects in this process, rather than the different dimensions that include child development. Among the seven competencies identified, evaluation and analysis were predominant. Moreover, the competence diversity and inclusion were identified in only two studies. Finally, the nurses see that their skills/competencies are being applied in health promotion, incorporating them without using a theoretical framework that guides their actions in child growth and development.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it