MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152773290 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v3n2p11

Development of a learning object for caring for the sensory environment in a neonatal unit: noise, light and handling

2012· article· en· W2152773290 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luciana Mara Monti Fonseca, Fernanda dos Santos Nogueira de Góes, Mayra Jardim Medeiros, Fernanda Salim Ferreira de Castro, Nelma Ellen Zamberlan-Amorim, Carmen Gracinda Silvan Scochi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeonatal intensive care unitUnit (ring theory)Object (grammar)Sensory systemNursingLearning environmentNoise (video)Flash (photography)Health professionalsHealth carePsychologyMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePediatricsCognitive psychologyPedagogyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background : The environment in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) can contribute to the occurrence of stressing situations involving the hospitalized newborn, the family and the health team, due to inappropriate sensory stimuli. Aim : To describe the experience of constructing the Learning Object (LO) about the sensory environment (noise, light and handling) in a NICU. Methods : A LO about the environment in a NICU was developed in Flash® for WEB, utilizing participative methodology in company with the unit’s team, focusing on sensitizing the team about the effects of noise, light and handling, and about the strategies for their reduction. Results : The participants understood the importance which attention paid to the environment of the NICU plays in the development of the newborn. The LO was organized into theoretical modules with the insertion of multimedia and a simulation module. Conclusion : The LO is considered appropriate for use in the training of nurses and in the educating of NICU health care professionals on the neonatal unit’s environment. For this teaching tool’s efficacy in the education of health teams and the family to be verified, however, it will need to be applied practically.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicHealth Education and ValidationFrench-language works237,207