La comunicación entre enfermeras quirúrgicas: conviviendo entre dos mundos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La comunicación es una herramienta fundamental para el desarrollo profesional de las enfermeras, con consecuencias negativas o positivas en función de los diferentes estilos comunicativos y dinámicas de grupo. Este estudio tiene como objetivo conocer cómo es la comunicación intraprofesional entre enfermeras dentro del área quirúrgica, identificando modelos conductuales, factores generadores de satisfacción/insatisfacción, entre otros. Metodología: Estudio cualitativo etnográfico. Resultados: El mayor determinante de satisfacción y compromiso asociado a la comunicación intraprofesional son las relaciones sociales que se establecen, por encima de la autonomía, de las cargas de trabajo, de la presión del tiempo fundamentalmente. Conclusiones: Es importante darse cuenta de lo necesario que es transmitir de una forma adecuada los conocimientos, estableciendo un feed-back, sin barreras, siendo empáticos y así reconocer nuestras necesidades para aumentar eficacia y eficiencia en nuestro ámbito.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".