DESENVOLVIMENTO DE UM MANUAL VIRTUAL EDUCATIVO DE ENFERMAGEM PARA ALTA HOSPITALAR DE UMA INSTITUIÇÃO ESPECIALIZADA EM CARDIOPNEUMOLOGIA: PROTOCOLO DE REVISÃO DE ESCOPO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: realizar um protocolo de revisão de escopo para mapear evidências científicas sobre a construção de um manual educativo para a alta hospitalar de pacientes de um hospital de referência cardiopulmonar. Método: O protocolo utilizou o método proposto pelo Joanna Briggs institute Reviewers, Manual 2020 (JBS), que estabelece as cinco fases 1) identificação da questão de pesquisa; 2) identificação dos estudos relevantes; 3) seleção de estudo; 4) mapeamento dos dados; e 5) agrupamento, resumo e relato dos resultados. Para elaboração da síntese de revisão seguir-se-ão recomendações do checklist PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA Extension for ScopingReviews). A seleção dos estudos será feita por dois pesquisadores de forma independente. Para a interpretação dos resultados, utilizar-se-á do software RYANN. Em seguida, análise de frequência das palavras e a conexão entre elas, ou seja, análise temática de Bardin. A expectativa deste estudo é identificar evidências científicas que possam subsidiar a questão da pesquisa e colaborar para análise reflexiva sobre o tema.
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 | 0.100 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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".