Avaliação de unidades familiares não tradicionais e suas implicações para o cuidado de enfermagem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unidades familiares na?o tradicionais logram conquistas contemporaneamente, tornando relevante a pesquisa acerca de seus aspectos estruturais e funcionais. Objetivou-se conhecer algumas fami?lias de configurac?a?o na?o tradicional, avaliando-as por interme?dio do Modelo Calgary de Avaliac?a?o de Fami?lias. Procedeu-se estudo de caso qualitativo, realizado em Bele?m, PA, Brasil. A coleta de dados ocorreu entre novembro de 2017 ate? marc?o de 2018 preferencialmente na presenc?a da totalidade dos componentes em visitas domiciliares, com aplicac?a?o de entrevista semiestruturada conforme o diagrama ramificado do Modelo Calgary de Avaliac?a?o de Fami?lias e uso do software GenoPro. A classificac?a?o foi: unipessoal, uniparental feminina com filhos, homoafetiva feminina, tradicional com membro agregado e uniparental feminina com filho adotivo, indicando complexas relac?o?es com os componentes da unidade e da fami?lia extensa. O Modelo Calgary de Avaliac?a?o de Fami?lias demonstrou seu impacto para a enfermagem de fami?lia no que concerne a? tipificac?a?o de fami?lias na?o tradicionais, assiste?ncia, expressa?o de sentimentos, soluc?a?o de problemas e evoluc?a?o dos arranjos familiares.
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 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".