Pesquisa participativa sob a lógica do cuidado: análise compartilhada em um CAPS AD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pesquisa procurou explorar as experiências de adoecimento com base no ponto de vista dos usuários de um CAPS AD III. A metodologia empregada neste estudo se baseia em um desenho qualitativo e se divide em duas etapas. Na primeira, foi realizada uma entrevista semiestruturada com os participantes — Entrevista Narrativa de Adoecimento McGill-MINI —, e, na segunda, os participantes foram parte integrante do processo de validação, análise dos resultados e elaboração do arcabouço temário. Os resultados anunciam narrativas atravessadas por desamparo psíquico, abandono familiar, perdas e falta de credibilidade, efeito de um processo excludente em que a droga se sobrepõe ao sujeito. A pesquisa participativa sob a lógica do cuidado (Tangvald-Pedersen & Bongaardt, 2016) possibilitou um diálogo reflexivo acerca da experiência de adoecimento aproximando pesquisadores e participantes, que são como diferentes contadores de histórias, permitindo que a tessitura do fenômeno descrito pudesse enriquecer a compreensão uns dos outros.
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 | 0.016 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".