Evaluation of Pain, Stress and Coping in Puerperal Women After Cesarean Section / Avaliação da dor, Estresse e Coping em Puérperas no Pós-Operatório de Cesárea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Avaliar dor, estresse percebido e coping em puérperas pós cesárea. Métodos: Estudo transversal, quantitativo, com 65 puérperas em um hospital geral. Foram incluídas puérperas no Pós Operatório de cesárea, com queixas e/ou sinais de dor nas últimas 24 horas. Coleta de dados de abril a julho de 2014, com Formulário de caracterização sociodemográfica/clínica, Questionário McGill de Dor, Escala de Estresse Percebido e Inventário de Estratégias de Coping. Foi realizada análise estatística. Projeto aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética e Pesquisa da Unijuí, CAAE nº 26726014.0.0000.5350. Resultados: 46,4% referiram dor severa; 64,6% dor “enjoada”. Dentre as puérperas, 83,1% foram classificadas em médio estresse e, a Reavaliação Positiva foi o fator de coping mais utilizado. Conclusão: Pelo procedimento cirúrgico a saúde biopsicossocial da puérpera pode ficar comprometida pela presença da dor, entretanto a utilização de estratégias de coping focadas no problema pode favorecer o enfrentamento dos estressores de forma positiva.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".