Utilização do modelo Calgary em dissertações e teses de enfermagem: estudo bibliométrico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To analyze bibliometric indicators of nursing dissertations and theses on the Calgary Model of Family Assessment (CMFA) produced in Brazil. Methods: bibliometric study, whose sample consisted of fourteen dissertations and seven theses, published in the period 2002-2014, selected by consulting the Capes Portal, BDENF, BDTD and CEPEn. Results: The indicators show a reduced quantity of publications on the subject in the period investigated. Most of the studies were from Postgraduate in the Southeast Nursing Programs. Most of the surveyed studies were the dissertation mode. There was a predominance of studies with qualitative approach. Conclusion: despite the reduced number of dissertations and theses of Nursing who used CMFA in Brazil, studies based on this model attracted the interest of researchers disseminate the knowledge produced by prestigious scientific journals in the area
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 | 0.039 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.065 | 0.108 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".