MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168776401 · doi:10.4236/health.2015.711155

Family Organization in the Care of Pediatric Heart Transplant Patients: The Genogram as an Investigative Tool

2015· article· en· W2168776401 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Silvania Braga Ribeiro, Ângela Maria Alves e Souza, Ana Ruth Macêdo Monteiro, Kiarelle Lourenço Penaforte, Sarah Maria de Sousa Feitoza, Virna Ribeiro Feitosa Cestari, Flávia Paula Magalhães Monteiro, Maria Gyslane Vasconcelos Sobral, Samila Torquato Araújo, Máguida Gomes da Silva, Mona Lisa Menezes Bruno, Islene Víctor Barbosa, Isabelle Barbosa Pontes

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenogramContext (archaeology)SituatedExploratory researchMedicineNursingQualitative researchPediatric nursingFamily medicinePsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to describe structure, functionality and development of pediatric heart transplant families, from the understanding of the experienced chronic condition. A descriptive, exploratory study using a qualitative approach was developed in a hospital situated in a city of Northeast Brazil, in 2012. The study was conducted with three families, using the Calgary Family Assessment Model (CFAM). In addition to the genogram, an analysis of the children’s/adolescents’ family members was conducted at the time of interview. Two families were binuclear families and one was mononuclear. From the evaluation, it was possible to determine the care and support network of children and adolescents with heart transplants, as well as some difficulties faced by the investigated families. Nurses are important in this family context since the visualization of the family genogram can generate a change in the nursing care to each family.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207