The use of the Calgary model in nursing dissertations and theses: a bibliometric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The study’s purpose has been to analyze some bibliometric indicators of nursing Dissertations\nand Theses with regards to the Calgary Family Assessment Model (CFAM) produced in Brazil. Methods: It\nis a bibliometric study, where the sample consisted of fourteen Dissertations and seven Theses, which were\npublished over the period from 2002 to 2014, and selected by consulting the Capes Portal, BDENF, BDTD\nand CEPEn. Results: The indicators have shown a reduced quantity of publications on the subject during the\nperiod scrutinized. Most of the studies were from Nursing Postgraduate Programs in the Southeast region.\nMost of the surveyed studies were written in dissertation fashion. There was a predominance of studies with\na qualitative approach. Conclusion: Despite the reduced number of Dissertations and Theses of Nursing who\nhave used the CFAM in Brazil, studies based on this model attracted the interest of researchers in spreading\nthe knowledge produced by prestigious scientific journals in the research field.
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 | 0.020 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.067 | 0.091 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".