MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400548488 · doi:10.18569/tempus.v9i3.1788

Planejamento de Recursos Humanos de Radioterapia em Hospitais do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS).

2015· article· pt· W2400548488 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Torres Maia, Ângela Maria de Oliveira Almeida, Sandro José Martins, Wagner de Jesus Martins, Gabriel Veloso Maia, Moizés Ferreira Borba Filho

Bibliographic record

VenueTempus Actas de Saúde Coletiva · 2015
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative and Oncologic Care
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A proposta deste estudo era averiguar se as áreas de recursos humanos de hospitais do Sistema Único de Saúde, que ofertam serviços de radioterapia à população, planejam o desenvolvimento de suas equipes de radioterapia. A metodologia aplicada neste estudo foi norteada pela seleção de cinco hospitais, considerando o critério de hospitais de médio porte que ofertam serviços de radioterapia e que serão contemplados com o recebimento de novos equipamentos por meio do Plano de Expansão de Radioterapia do SUS pelo Ministério da Saúde, além da aplicação de entrevista por meio de roteiro semiestruturado de perguntas direcionadas a 23 profissionais de radioterapia e a cinco responsáveis de recursos humanos, com posterior análise de discurso. O resultado obtido foi que nenhum dos hospitais visitados realizada um planejamento de desenvolvimento de seus profissionais. Há falhas no planejamento de tais profissionais aliados a desafios a serem superados. Situações que podem refletir um impacto generalizado em hospitais de radioterapia do SUS, um caminho que deve ser analisado para elevar a qualidade de serviços à população.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTempus Actas de Saúde ColetivaSame topicPalliative and Oncologic CareFrench-language works237,207