Ensino da bioética: avaliação de um objeto virtual de aprendizagem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".