Teste de uma metodologia para avaliar a organização, acesso e qualidade técnica do cuidado na atenção à diarréia na infância
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to evaluate the issues of access and technical quality in actions to control diarrhea in a selected municipality in the State of Bahia, Brazil, a study of multiple cases was conducted with two levels of analysis: practices themselves and the coordination between them. Cases were defined as hospitalization (8) or death (3) due to diarrhea. All deaths were investigated, and hospitalizations were submitted to intentional selection. Aspects and approaches vis-a-vis technical quality evaluation and estimation of the degree of implementation in diarrhea control measures were derived from the theoretical model. Health care trajectories for diarrhea were reconstituted from interviews and patient chart data. The results identified: organizational barriers related to long waiting time at primary care units; geographic barriers, or the distance from users' place of residence to health services; and financial barriers due to shortage of financial resources for transportation. Quality of care was considered inadequate, and diarrhea control measures were classified as insufficient in practically all of the dimensions analyzed.
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 | 0.046 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".