O trabalho dos Agentes Comunitários de Saúde à luz da Teoria Comunidades de Prática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work of Community Health Workers (ACS) was analyzed in light of Communities of Practice (CP) theory. This is a qualitative cross-sectional study carried out in four municipalities in Ceará. Six focus groups and six interviews were carried out with 45 Community Health Workers (ACS), observing ethical aspects. The data corpus was analyzed using the content analysis technique. The results show that ACS participation in the ESF is marked by experience in the community, and the main focus is monitoring priority groups. The practices put them before the diverse social and family complexities, generating reflections and building new meanings for themselves and their work process. The ACS CPs engage and share challenges and unique learning from work, characterized by close contact and relationships with the families of the territory, which reveals needs hardly perceived by other ESF professionals. The meaning of being ACS as one who listens, embraces, and perceives the needs of families invisible to services, is evident in the reification processes. The ACS better exercise their role as ESF articulators in the territories the greater the spaces for dialogue between them, the other team members, and management.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".