MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6997369625

Vulnerability to stress in pre-hospital medical emergency professionals

2009· article· en· W6997369625 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePortuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Sample (material)Stress (linguistics)Vulnerability assessmentMedical practiceSampling (signal processing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research with pre-hospital medical emergency professionals in Portugal is still extremely reduced, even though this matter is better developed in countries such as the USA, Canada and Japan. Therefore, the characteristics inherent to this profession produce the interest to comprehend more thoroughly the vulnerability of these professionals to stress, which was the main objective of the present study. The sample was constituted by 161 medical emergency professionals distributed throughout the national territory; 42,2% of them possess the professional category of TAE/TAS, 31,7% are nurses, and 26,1% are physicians. We used the clusters sampling method, followed by the aleatoric sampling technique. The results indicate the existence of low global averages in vulnerability to stress. "Perfectionism and intolerance to frustration", "Adverse life conditions", "Dramatization of existence", and "Deprivation of affects and rejection", as well as to the totality of the stress assessment instrument. The subjects of the study that did not practice exercises presented higher stress vulnerability average values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.412 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePortuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207