MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032221977 · doi:10.1590/0034-7167-2018-0953

Stress and cortisol levels among members of the nursing team

2020· article· en· W3032221977 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Augusto Bardaquim, Sérgio Valverde Marques dos Santos, Ernandes Gonçalves Dias, Rita de Cássia de Marchi Barcellos Dalri, Aída Maria de Oliveira Cruz Mendes, Maria Cecília Bueno Jayme Gallani, Maria Lúcia do Carmo Cruz Robazzi

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Enfermagem · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsStatistical softwareStress (linguistics)Microsoft excelPerceived Stress ScaleMedicineExploratory researchPsychologyNursingCross-sectional studyStatistical significanceInternal medicineData scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of hospital nursing professionals with the presence of stress, and to associate this with capillary cortisol. METHOD: A cross-sectional, exploratory and correlational study, conducted in a hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. A total of 164 nursing professionals participated; the Perceived Stress Scale was administered, and hair samples were obtained for laboratory analysis. Data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (2010), and then into Microsoft Office and the R software, version 3.2.2. RESULTS: High levels of capillary cortisol in 47% of participants suggest the presence of stress, but no statistical significance between cortisol and stress levels were found. CONCLUSIONS: Stress and capillary cortisol levels were indicative of stress among nursing professionals; however, no association between them was found, although the values found were above those recommended.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de EnfermagemSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207