Aplicacao do Modelo Calgary de Avaliacao Familiar no contexto hospitalar e na atencao primaria a saude Revisao integrativa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo caracterizar as publicacoes sobre a aplicacao do Modelo Calgary de Avaliacao Familiar no contexto hospitalar e na atencaoprimaria a saude divulgadas em periodicos online da area de saude Material e Metodo revisao integrativa da literatura O levantamentodo material foi realizado mediante a busca no portal Capes Pubmed Medline Lilacs BDENF na CidSaude e Ibecs Foram adotadosos seguintes criterios de inclusao artigos online disponiveis na integra publicados nos idiomas portugues ingles e espanhol entreJaneiro de 2008 a dezembro de 2013 A amostra foi composta por 25 trabalhos Resultados os anos 2008 2010 e 2013 evidenciaram umnumero maior de producoes predominaram artigos originais 640 dos estudos foram realizados na atencao primaria a saude Quantoa autoria dos estudos a pesquisa mostrou que houve a participacao do enfermeiro em 880 das publicacoes Conclusoes foi possivelevidenciar que a aplicacao do MCAF tanto no contexto hospitalar quanto na atencao primaria a saude possibilita uma abordagem maisaprofundada sobre a estrutura o desenvolvimento e o funcionamento familiar o que se configura como uma ferramenta efetiva para identificar diagnosticos familiares
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 | 0.025 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".