Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basic purpose of this work was to investigate the dialogue possibility between the Anthroposophy, philosophy which was born at the fist quarter of the previous century, and the Nursing.In order to reach to this target, objectives were established as to bring back the initial anthroposophic nursing practices in Brazil and to characterize the nurses in the country that have adopted it and also to exemplify a kind of professional nursing action based on anthroposophic principles.In order to contextualize to the reader, some considerations were made on the life of Rudolf Steiner, the founder and main divulger of the Anthroposophy -or Spiritual Science -as well as a quick explanation of the main ideas.This research makes use of a qualitative methodology which is characterized by a descriptive-exploiting study, using the following data collection techniques: interview, questionnaire and field observation at the Monte Azul Community Association, in São Paulo-SP.The main results indicates that a) the anthroposophic nursing started in the 70s in São Paulo city, SP, is still an unknown action area, especially to the academic groups; b) the anthroposophic nurses are concentrated in the application of the "external therapies"; c) the anthroposophic ideas are coherent to the professional procedures of the anthroposophic nurses that work at ACOMA and d) that the Anthroposophy can be applied to any nursing area, since it is focused on the human being but not only in its physical aspects, also considering its emotional life, vital quality and life history.The study also alerts to the need of a deeper discussion on the human being conception in the academic-professional formation of the future nurse.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".