MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580434908

PRÁTICAS DE LIDERANÇA DO ENFERMEIRO NA ATENÇÃO BÁSICA À SAÚDE: UMA TEORIA FUNDAMENTADA NOS DADOS

2016· article· es· W2580434908 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriela Marcellino de Melo Lanzoni, Betina Hörner Schlindwein Meirelles, Greta G. Cummings

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Nursing, Elderly Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyNursingPhilosophyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estudio cualitativo con el objetivo de comprender el significado del práticas de liderazgo ejercido por los enfermeros que forman parte de los servicios de Atención Primaria de Salud en un municipio en el sur de Brasil. Se utilizó la Teoría Fundamentada en los Datos como marco metodológico. Los datos fueron recolectados a través de entrevistas semi-estructuradas con 30 enfermeros vinculados a la Atención Primaria de Salud y profesores universitarios, divididos en cuatro grupos, entre 2011 y 2012. Del proceso de análisis, surgieron nueve categorías, que sustentan el fenómeno: “Revelando las prácticas de liderazgo de enfermería en el complejo contexto de Atención Primaria de Salud”. El liderazgo fue visto como un recurso en el cuidar/administrar personas y en el desarrollo de un equipo de líderes que vise la organización y calificación del trabajo en salud. Se recomienda el rescate del trabajo clínico de las enfermeras, a fin de mantener su inversión en el equipo de salud y fortalecer el binomio líder/cuidador.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.341
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHealth, Nursing, Elderly CareFrench-language works237,207