Communication Process for the Strengthening of the Care of the Minor in a Pediatric Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The reflection about the elements of communication that health professionals use strengthens the empathic relationship and therefore the actions that seek self-care in patients. Nursing schools must teach how to acquire competences from what should be (moral) to fully consider the emotions and needs of hospitalized children so that they can attend to the call of care. Nursing should tend to social and communication skills to offer a humanized care when children appeal to crying, to silence, to play, to attract attention. OBJECTIVE: Propose a framework of moral management of communication from the design of a functional communication structure model for the pediatric patient to come to the call of their care in a positive way. METHODOLOGY: Nature of qualitative study of descriptive type and symbolic interactionism (perceptual regression). The population was 44 nurses. The data was obtained by interviews analyzed by the STATGRAPHICS XVII Centurión Plus® and Atlas Ti 8.0 ® programs. CONCLUSION: The practices of nurses respond to the dynamics so that the child comes to the care when they are aware of the purpose of communication in strengthening the moral development of the child. A model of functional communication structure for pediatric patient care adjusted to the axioms of Paul Watzlawick is proposed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".