Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patienter med langvarig smartproblematik ar en standigt vaxande grupp i samhallet. Det har varit svart for dem att fa sin smarta erkand, vilket har medfort att forskningen inom omradet ar eftersatt jamfort med forskning kring proportionerligt jamforbara sjukdomar. Syftet medstudien var att fokusera pa patientens upplevelse av langvarig smarta och vilka konsekvenser denna har for patientens liv. Litteraturen som granskats och analyserats baseras pa undersokningar fran Sverige, Storbritannien, USA,Tyskland, Nya Zeeland och Canada.Resultatet visade att det for patienter med langvarig smartproblematik, ar viktigt att bade sjukvardspersonal och narstaende tror pa patientens smarta. Patienten kan genom att oka accepterandet och forstaelsen av smartan forbattra sin livskvalitet. Betydelsefullt for bade patient och narstaende ar att anvanda ratt copingstrategier for att hantera smartan. Samtidigt ar det viktigt att hjalpa patienten att bibehalla socialt umgange. Sjukskoterskor kan hjalpa smartpatienter att uppna en kansla av okad halsa genom att anvanda denna kunskap. (Less)
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.014 |
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".