MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552803303 · doi:10.1590/1983-80422016243150

Ensino da bioética: avaliação de um objeto virtual de aprendizagem

2016· article· pt· W2552803303 on OpenAlexaff
Cristine Maria Warmling, Fabiana Schneider Pires, Júlio Baldisserotto, Martine Lévesque

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Bioética · 2016
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhysicsPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumo O uso de tecnologias de informação e comunicação aproximou o ensino da bioética à prática profissional. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar o objeto virtual de aprendizagem Análises de Situações Éticas, produzido e utilizado como abordagem inovadora no ensino da bioética em cursos na área da saúde. A metodologia integra análises quantitativas e qualitativas. Os participantes são estudantes que utilizaram o objeto virtual nas disciplinas ética e bioética de cursos de odontologia e fonoaudiologia. Foi aplicado questionário (questões abertas e fechadas), e as categorias analisadas relacionam-se ao uso do objeto virtual e à aprendizagem da bioética: interação, conteúdo curricular e dinâmicas de ensino-aprendizagem. Depoimentos demonstram que o material educativo proporcionou análise de situações com possíveis conflitos bioéticos e evidenciam a possibilidade de interdisciplinaridade, considerando a experiência importante na formação de profissionais da saúde. O estudo aponta para a bioética enquanto campo curricular transversal das práticas de saúde.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.018

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.354 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista BioéticaSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207