Gestão da Atenção Primária: uma proposta de avaliação de impacto da APS em duas cidades do Nordeste do Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esse estudo apresenta uma proposta de avaliação de impacto na APS a partir da análise contextual da atenção primaria em duas grandes cidades do Ceará, visto que Fortaleza (gestão incremental por OSs) e Sobral (Gestão Pública) representam ambientes privilegiados para a aplicação de modelos avaliativos visando mensurar o impacto, a eficiência, a efetividade e a resolutividade aplicáveis em diferentes contextos da APS do Brasil. Palavras-chave: Direção e Governança do Setor de Saúde, Avaliação de Processos e Resultados (cuidado de saúde), Avaliação em Saúde, Qualidade, Acesso e Avaliação da Assistência à Saúde, Avaliação do Impacto na Saúde. Abstract This study presents a proposal for impact assessment on PHC from the contextual analysis of primary care in two large cities in Ceará, since Fortaleza (incremental management by OSs - non-profit health organization) and Sobral (Public Management) represent privileged environments for the application of evaluation models aiming to measure the impact, efficiency, effectiveness and resoluteness applicable in different contexts of PHC in Brazil. Keywords: Health Sector Stewardship and Governance. Process and Results Evaluation (health care). Health Assessment. Quality, Access and Evaluation of Health Care. Health Impact Assessment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".