Lesão medular no contexto da família: avaliação estrutural com genograma e ecomapa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Avaliar a representação estrutural de famílias com entes que possuem lesão medular com base no genograma e no ecomapa. Método: Estudo qualitativo, realizado com duas famílias que possuem entes com efeitos do traumatismo da medula espinhal que foram atendidos no PROAMDE. Utilizou-se o genograma e ecomapa como estratégias de coleta de dados na Avaliação Estrutural, componente do Modelo Calgary de Avaliação da Família. Resultados: O genograma das famílias apontou reestruturação com formação de novos arranjos familiares por meio da recomposição de seus membros na estrutura interna familiar com vista à melhoria da mobilidade e acessibilidade. O ecomapa elucidou os vínculos das famílias extensas e dos sistemas mais amplos para ajustes e possibilidades de intervenção da enfermagem no âmbito da atenção básica. Conclusão:As famílias ajustaram-se diante das situações estressoras e de mudanças com o intuito de efetivar o cuidado no cotidiano familiar.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".