Atuação do Nurse Navigator: revisão integrativa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify scientific literature on oncology nurses who provide patient navigation services as nurse navigators. METHODS: Integrative review of literature searches in the databases LILACS, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, SciELO, Web of Science and Science Direct based on the descriptors patient; navigation; nurse; professional; cancer; oncology; navigator; and navigators. RESULTS: Seventeen articles were identified and grouped according to the following thematic approach: Care Processes; Patients; and Health Workers. It was observed that scientific literature on nurse navigators mostly comes from the United States, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and Demark, where the first nurse navigator programmes were introduced. No studies were found in local journals or populations. CONCLUSIONS: The nurse navigator offer a unique service for the provision of quality care. Although international research is recent, further studies on the role of these professionals are clearly needed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
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 it