Tecnologia Tatil para Avaliacao da Dor em Cegos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study general aims sits on the improvement, in the blind men co-partnership, and validation of tactile technology for the pain evaluation. It looks for, in three phases, identifying the form and the tactile content to apply in the tactile Scale of the Pain (version 1); to improve them according to the opinions of Brazilian and Canadian experts; and to apply the tactile technology in blind with pain history to analyze the tactile technology (Version 2A e 2B) reliability and analyze the versions validity with the pattem criteria of the Numeric Scale.. The theoretical bases were based in the concept, mechanisms neuro physiological involved to the interpretation and instruments used for measure of the painful experience; in the elements of the communication non visual; and, concepts and relationships between technology and nursing. After seeming favorable of the Ethics Committee UFC/CE, the first phase of the research began, in November of 2002, with the accomplishment of four Workshops to work the form and the content of the tactile technology (version 1), with a group of blind ff the Association of the Blind men from Ceará (ACEC). In the first phase, the investigation participative was used to obtain data starting from free interviews and observation participative, being registered in cassettes, photographed and filmed with the participants' previous authorization. It was obtained two versions, to 2A and 2B, the first with texture in sandpapers and Monday in stairway format, both three-dimensional ones. The Workshops allowed the ransom of the citizenship as fundamental right to the use of appropriate technology to the blind men reality. The second phase consisted of the application of an open questionnaire to obtain the experts appreciation as the form, the content and the potential of measure of the tactile technology, finishing the collection in July of 2003. It was obtained suggestions of space placement among the textures of the version 2A, insert of a point in high relief, indicating the beginning of the reading of the versions and, the use of the same ones in people without blindness. In the third phase, it was applied the versions in blind men with pain, before and after competitions happened during the World Olympics for Blind men (IBSA) in August, in the city of Québec - Canada. It was used of the simple descriptive statistics for the characterization of the sample and statistics non parametric, to compare the versions proposed with the Numeric Scale (EVA), being treated by the program ssps. The averages (M) and the standard deviation was calculated for each version and the test of reliability intraclass (ICC) it showed the version 2B more it approximates of the characteristics of the Numeric Scale measure. The Pearson correlation (rs) allowed analysis of the scores, confirming the reliability of the versions. It was ended that, the version 2B approaches of EVA, it measure potential adapted
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 | 0.015 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".