ESTRATÉGIAS EDUCACIONAIS PARA PROMOVER A INTERAÇÃO SOCIAL DE CRIANÇAS COM TRANSTORNO OPOSITOR DESAFIADOR (TOD) NO ÂMBITO ESCOLAR: UMA REVISÃO INTEGRATIVA DE LITERATURA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este estudo procurou identificar as estratégias e práticas de promoção e interação de crianças com Transtorno Opositor Desafiador (TOD) no âmbito escolar. Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa de acordo com as orientações propostas por Whittemore e Knafl (2005) e desenvolvido com as fases descritas por Toronto e Remington (2020), com buscas realizadas nas bases de dados: PUBMED, WEB OF SCIENCE, SCOPUS, ERIC e Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde-BVS; recorte temporal 2016-2021 e nos idiomas português, inglês e espanhol. Foram encontrados 1.445 estudos na busca inicial e um estudo incluído na busca manual. Ao final, 4 estudos atenderam aos critérios de inclusão e integraram a análise qualitativa da pesquisa. Os achados destacam a importância de incorporar estratégias inovadoras nas intervenções escolares para apoiar as necessidades da saúde mental e acadêmicas das crianças diagnosticadas com TOD, bem como a carência de pesquisas voltadas ao tema. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Transtorno Opositor Desafiador. Educação. Metodologia. Interação.
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 | 0.024 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".