EVALUACIÓN FUNCIONAL DE FAMILIAS DE PERSONAS CON CONDUCTA SUICIDA: APLICACIÓN DEL MODELO DE CALGARY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMEN: Objetivo: revelar las acciones que mantienen la funcionalidad de la familia de personas con conducta suicida. Método: se trata de un estudio cualitativo, descriptivo-exploratorio, basado en el marco teórico y metodológico del Modelo de Evaluación Familiar de Calgary. Once usuarios del Centro de Estudio y Prevención del Suicidio, ubicado en Salvador, Bahía, Brasil, participaron del encuentro online en 2022 para elaborar el genograma familiar. En la segunda etapa, la entrevista incluyó a nueve familias de usuarios. Resultados: surgieron las categorías: control por parte de los familiares; uso de la tecnología por parte de los familiares para mantener contacto diario; manejo de la crisis suicida por parte de los familiares y atención de los familiares a las necesidades básicas, todas las categorías se relacionan con la persona con conducta suicida. Conclusión: existen formas de implementar políticas y manuales de salud que orienten a los familiares y amigos para manejar la crisis suicida, y evitar consecuencias no deseadas, como el intento de suicidio y el acto consumado.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".