MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Avaliação da fragilidade de idosos institucionalizados

2013· article· pt· W2004701681 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paulista de Enfermagem · 2013
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a presença de fragilidade e sua relação com as características sociodemográficas e clínicas em idosos institucionalizados. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal com 54 idosos residentes em instituição de longa permanência da região Nordeste do Brasil. Os instrumentos de coleta utilizados foram a Escala de Fragilidade de Edmonton e outro de perfil socioeconômico e de saúde. Os dados foram analisados através da estatística descritiva e do teste do Qui-quadrado, com nível de significância 0,05. RESULTADOS: A média de idade foi de 72,4 (±8,5) anos, 61,1% eram do sexo masculino e 74,1% apresentaram algum nível de fragilidade. Houve correlações positivas entre fragilidade, sexo, idade, presença de comorbidades, índice de massa corporal e necessidade e quantidade de medicamentos. CONCLUSÃO: A fragilidade em idosos institucionalizados sofre influência das características sociodemográficas e clínicas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.012

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.270 · 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