MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Equivalência da escala de luto perinatal para escala de luto parental após a perda de um filho / Equivalence from the perinatal grief scale to the parental grief scale after the loss of a child

2022· article· pt· W4312395292 on OpenAlexaff
Gisele Ferreira Paris, Francine de Montigny, Sandra Marisa Pelloso

Bibliographic record

VenueCiência Cuidado e Saúde · 2022
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefHumanitiesPsychologyArtPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introdução: a manifestação mais comum do luto complicado é diante da morte de um filho. Neste contexto, observa-se a emergência da utilização de escalas direcionadas para pais na identificação do luto parenteral. Objetivo: realizar equivalência da Escala de Luto Perinatal para Escala de Luto Parental após a perda de um filho. Método: trata-se de um estudo metodológico, que envolve a coleta e análise dos dados através da equivalência linguística, semântica, cultural, conceitual e coloquial da escala de luto perinatal (EL Perinatal) para escala de luto parental (EL Parental) na língua portuguesa do Brasil. Resultados: para equivalência da EL Perinatal para EL Parental foi realizada a proposta de alteração da palavra “bebê” para “filho(a)” e as palavras do gênero feminino também foram possibilitadas para o gênero masculino na abordagem aos pais. O comitê de juízes especialistas participantes na adaptação transcultural e validação da EL Perinatal concordou em 100% das modificações. Conclusão: a proposta da EL Parental amplia a investigação do luto complicado para os pais que perderam seus filhos em todas as faixas etárias.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCiência Cuidado e SaúdeSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207