Falhas de comunicação e epistemológicas limitam a abordagem da Bioética na formação e na prática em Saúde
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo analisa o Ensino de Ética e Bioética (EEB) nos Programas de Residência Multiprofissional em Saúde (PRMS) vinculados à Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Brasil. A fim de compreender o EEB em sete programas pesquisados, avaliamos sua perspectiva teórica com base nos projetos pedagógicos (PP) comparando com um currículo de referência (“Core Curriculum”, Unesco). Para avaliar o aspecto prático, desenvolvemos 11 entrevistas semiestruturadas (critério de saturação) com preceptores (as) avaliadas por análise de conteúdo (abordagem framework). Os PP analisados tinham carga horária e módulos temáticos aquém daqueles propostos no currículo referência. Os (as) preceptores (as) desconhecem o EEB como parte do currículo dos PRMS. Apontamos a qualificação da comunicação universidade e serviços e o reconhecimento das contribuições dos (as) preceptores (as) na formação dos residentes como medidas importantes para qualificar o EEB.
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 | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".