MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Perceptions about the hospital environment from the perspective of high-risk puerperal women based on Florence Nightingale's theory

2015· article· en· W2262378470 on OpenAlexaff
Ariane Thaise Frello Roque, Telma Elisa Carraro

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista gaúcha de enfermagem · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContextualizationNarrativeNursingMedicinePerspective (graphical)Postpartum periodQualitative researchPerceptionPsychologySociologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: to understand the perceptions of high-risk puerperal women about the hospital environment based on Florence Nightingale's theory. High-risk postpartum period is the period of time when post-partum women care for their babies in the neonatal ICU, and experience high stress levels. METHODS: it is a qualitative study with narrative approach based on Florence Nightingale's theory, conducted at a public institution in southern Brazil, from January to March 2010. Seven mothers over 18 years with newborns admitted to the neonatal ICU were the research subjects. RESULTS: the contextualization of their narratives, the caring environment in which they experienced this particular stage in their lives, indicates that high-risk puerperal women seek ties and support. CONCLUSIONS: the challenge of spending an indefinite period of time in a strange environment, away from home, with their babies under the care of health professionals, while apart from their relatives, highlights the need for nursing care during this stage.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista gaúcha de enfermagemSame topicMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareFrench-language works237,207