Habilidades de comunicação clínica dos preceptores de medicina de família e comunidade em Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Este estudo investigou a autoavaliação dos preceptores (versão resumida do Guia Observacional Calgary-Cambridge) sobre quanto aplicam e ensinam HCC, bem como sobre oportunidades de ensino e qualidade do feedback. Métodos: Realizou-se um estudo transversal com 44 preceptores ativos do internato e da residência de medicina de família e comunidade de Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brasil. Resultados: Os preceptores se autoavaliaram positivamente em relação à aplicação e ao ensino de HCC, mas as oportunidades de ensino de HCC são escassas e a qualidade do feedback é mediana. Conclusão: É preciso melhorar a estrutura física e a educação permanente sobre feedback e métodos de ensino, incluindo videogravação de consulta, para ampliar as oportunidades de ensino de HCC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".