Analisis documental de un instrumento que valore los aspectos que intervienen en el concepto de morir dignamente / Documentary analysis of an instrument to assess the issues involved in the concept of die with dignity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo de este estudio es revisar y analizar documentalmente la existencia de un instrumento que valore los conceptos que intervienen en el concepto de muerte digna, para una mayor comprensión los eventos que se presentan en el cuidado de los pacientes con enfermedad oncológica terminal, Bogota 2010. Para esto, en principio se realizó la revisión del estado del arte e investigaciones realizadas en este tema como contextualización del trabajo. Seguido de esto, se buscaron instrumentos usados en estudios relacionados con el tema, en esta etapa se hizo un acercamiento a investigaciones realizadas en Inglaterra, Japón, Perú y Canadá. Como resultado de esta búsqueda se encuentra el artículo: “The patient dignity inventory: A novel way of measuring dignity-related distress in palliative care” realizado por Harvey Chochinov y colaboradores donde se encuentra el instrumento “Patient Dignity Inventory” (PDI) o “Inventario de la dignidad del paciente”. En este articulo (resultado de una investigación extensa), se mostró la validez facial, la consistencia interna, la fiabilidad, la estructura factorial y la validez concurrente de este instrumento en el idioma inglés y el cual adoptamos para la realización de este estudio. \nPara la utilización de este instrumento en el contexto Colombiano, fue necesaria su traducción y adecuación por parte de un experto traductor que conservó la estructura y contenido del mismo. Seguido de esto, se realizaron asesorías con el laboratorio de Psicometría de la Universidad Nacional para iniciar con la validez facial del instrumento en español. A pesar que el instrumento no ha sido aplicado, aún se está haciendo su validación. / Abstract: The aim of this study is review and analyze documented the existence of an instrument to assess the concepts involved in the concept of death with dignity, for better understanding the events that occur in the care of patients with terminal cancer, Bogota in 2010. For this, in principle the review was conducted of the state of the art and research about this issue as a contextualization of the work. Following this, we searched for instruments used in studies related to the issue at this stage was an approach to research conducted in England, Japan, Peru and Canada. As a result of this search is the article: "The Patient Dignity Inventory: A Novel Way of Measuring Dignity-related distress in palliative care" by Harvey Chochinov and colleagues where the instrument "Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI) or" Inventory of the patient's dignity. "In this paper (the result of extensive research), was the face validity, internal consistency, reliability, factor structure and concurrent validity of this instrument in the English language and which we adopted for this study. \nFor the use of this instrument in the Colombian context, it required their translation and adaptation by a skilled translator who kept the structure and content. Following this, there were consulting with the laboratory of Psychometrics, National University of Colombia to start with the facial validity of the instrument in Spanish. Although the instrument has not been applied, is still doing validation.
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 | 0.096 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".