Guía de buenas prácticas: intervención en crisis abordaje del trauma en adultos en las primeras cuatro semanas [evidencia comentada]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este documento es la ultima version en espanol (2019) de la guia sobre Intervencion en crisis de la Registered Nurses´Associacion of Ontario (RNAO), publicada en ingles (2017). Su primera edicion data de 2002 y tuvo un suplemento en 2006. El documento se centra en ayudar a las enfermeras y equipo interdisciplinar a llevar a cabo intervenciones en casos de crisis, especialmente atendiendo el trauma (de forma inmediata y hasta cuatro semanas tras la crisis) en personas mayores de 18 anos. Referencia de la evidencai comentada: Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. (2017). Crisis intervention for adults using a trauma-informed approach: Initial four weeks of management (3rd Ed.). Toronto, ON: Author. [Intervencion en Crisis: Abordaje del Trauma en Adultos en las Cuatro Primeras Semanas 3a ed.] (en linea). Disponible en https://www.bpso.es/wp- content/uploads/2020/01/D0013_Intervencion_en_Crisis_2018.pdf
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 | 0.029 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".