Reflections on nursing and COVID-19 in light of health education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To reflect on the nursing and pandemic of COVID-19 considering health education, health promotion, and the Ottawa Charter action areas. METHODS: A theoretical-reflexive study on health education and health promotion concepts and the areas of action presented in the Ottawa Charter. RESULTS: Educational actions are present in the contexts of epidemics and pandemics, as well as in the work of nurses, who need to be increasingly based on dialogue and individual and collective empowerment to enable users to adopt healthy and preventive behaviors - in this case, concerning COVID19. However, this professional needs effective and efficient public policy actions and measures based on scientific assumptions of health promotion. Final considerations: The actions of health education need to be increasingly valued because knowledge can be considered the first "vaccine" to combat any pandemic.
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 | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".