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 \nof tactile technology for the pain evaluation. It looks for, in three phases, identifying the form and \nthe tactile content to apply in the tactile Scale of the Pain (version 1); to improve them according \nto the opinions of Brazilian and Canadian experts; and to apply the tactile technology in blind \nwith pain history to analyze the tactile technology (Version 2A e 2B) reliability and analyze the \nversions validity with the pattem criteria of the Numeric Scale.. The theoretical bases were \nbased in the concept, mechanisms neuro physiological involved to the interpretation and \ninstruments used for measure of the painful experience; in the elements of the communication \nnon visual; and, concepts and relationships between technology and nursing. After seeming \nfavorable of the Ethics Committee UFC/CE, the first phase of the research began, in November \nof 2002, with the accomplishment of four Workshops to work the form and the content of the \ntactile technology (version 1), with a group of blind ff the Association of the Blind men from \nCeará (ACEC). In the first phase, the investigation participative was used to obtain data starting \nfrom free interviews and observation participative, being registered in cassettes, photographed \nand filmed with the participants' previous authorization. It was obtained two versions, to 2A and \n2B, the first with texture in sandpapers and Monday in stairway format, both three-dimensional \nones. The Workshops allowed the ransom of the citizenship as fundamental right to the use of \nappropriate technology to the blind men reality. The second phase consisted of the application of \nan open questionnaire to obtain the experts appreciation as the form, the content and the \npotential of measure of the tactile technology, finishing the collection in July of 2003. It was \nobtained suggestions of space placement among the textures of the version 2A, insert of a point \nin high relief, indicating the beginning of the reading of the versions and, the use of the same \nones in people without blindness. In the third phase, it was applied the versions in blind men with \npain, before and after competitions happened during the World Olympics for Blind men (IBSA) in \nAugust, in the city of Québec - Canada. It was used of the simple descriptive statistics for the \ncharacterization of the sample and statistics non parametric, to compare the versions proposed \nwith the Numeric Scale (EVA), being treated by the program ssps. The averages (M) and the \nstandard deviation was calculated for each version and the test of reliability intraclass (ICC) it \nshowed the version 2B more it approximates of the characteristics of the Numeric Scale \nmeasure. The Pearson correlation (rs) allowed analysis of the scores, confirming the reliability of \nthe 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".