A prática da abordagem familiar em contexto de cuidados primários: estudo de caso comparado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe the enterprise of the family approach, through interprofessional work, in the Family Health Strategy service in Brazil. Method: This is a comparative case study addressing a family perceived as being difficult to manage by the staff of a school health center. Household-based interviews were conducted with the instruments: Genograma, Ecomapa and Stages of the Family Life Cycle between March and April/2018, according to the Calgary Family Approach model. They were recorded in a field book, presented in a discursive way, including a survey of problems and the main interventions proposed to the family. Results: Recognition of the family context in its structure, development and functionality. It was evidenced weaknesses in family ties, conflicts between mother and daughter; relationships with social-community resources, with an emphasis on abusive alcohol consumption, the health situation of the key informant was presented as conditioning factors. The elaboration of the family therapeutic project considered the identification of possible solutions, adequate and accepted by the family. Conclusions: The presented case contributed potentially in how to guide the family approach, inferring in joint elaborations between multiprofessional team and the family. The proposition of intervention alternatives was conceived by a plural perspective of knowledge, surpassing a technicist rationality in health
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".