MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Avaliação da dor durante a troca de curativo de úlceras de perna

2012· article· pt· W2057069882 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

VenueTexto & Contexto - Enfermagem · 2012
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerna pernaMedicineGynecologyHumanitiesArtBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O estudo visou avaliar a dor em úlceras de perna, durante a troca de curativo e identificar os procedimentos mais dolorosos na opinião de usuários do SUS. Estudo transversal, conduzido com 76 usuários com úlceras de perna, sendo 69,8% homens, com média de idade de 57,8 anos (dp=13,2), atendidos em Unidades Básicas de Saúde e Ambulatório do Hospital das Clínicas de Goiânia, Goiás. Para avaliação da dor utilizou-se a Escala Numérica (0-10) e o Questionário de Dor de McGill. A ocorrência de dor durante o curativo foi de 76,3%, de intensidade moderada (Med=5, Q1=3, Q3=8, Min=1; Máx=10). Qualitativamente, a dor foi descrita como cansativa (63,2%) e latejante (55,3%). Os procedimentos mais dolorosos na opinião dos usuários incluíram a limpeza da ferida e a retirada do curativo anterior. A dor durante a troca de curativo de úlceras de perna foi frequente e exacerbada no momento da limpeza e retirada do curativo anterior.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, 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 score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.501
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.042 · 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