Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMEN FUNDAMENTO: En paises como Inglaterra, Estados Unidos, Canada, Australia, Nueva Zelanda, Holanda, Suecia, Irlanda, Espana, Puerto Rico, Brasil, Chile donde la asistencia sanitaria no esta universalizada y existen grandes barreras para acceder al sistema sanitario, el sistema no es equitativo y los profesionales medicos son escasos, debido al alto costo y lo prolongado de los estudios de medicina en estos paises, se asienten las raices para emerger el papel de la enfermera de practica avanzada, donde cumple un papel de sustitucion del medico, en las consultas de atencion primaria. OBJETIVO: Reflexionar sobre la Enfermeria Practica de Avanzada retos y desafios. METODO: Este articulo de revision se fundamenta en datos provenientes de los sistemas de informacion oficiales para la proyeccion de estrategias en el desarrollo de la enfermeria mediante un analisis documental que incluye libros de textos, monografias y articulos originales de revistas cientificas indexadas. CONCLUSIONES : El desarrollo de las formas de Enfermeria Practica de Avanzada es, una necesidad impostergable para el desarrollo de la competencia y el desempeno profesional de avanzadas capacidades para el liderazgo, la investigacion cientifica y humanistica de la especialidad.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".