A Utilização De Terminologias Em Saúde
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Identify The Use Of Terminologies In The Healthcare Service Providers And Health Plan Operators, With The Aim Of Verifying The Terminologies Used For Procedures And Interventions And Also To Know Their Purpose Of Use, Governance Processes And Storage. Methods: This Is A Descriptive Research That Aims To Present The Characteristics Of Application Of The Subject Matter, Involving The Use Of Standardized Techniques Of Data Collection Through A Questionnaire, Validated By Specialists And Containing 39 (Thirty-Nine) Open And Closed Questions. The Sample Selection Criterion For The Questionnaire Were: Public And Private Hospitals, Accredited By Joint Commission International (Jci) And Accreditation Canada International (Aci), Health Plan Operators, Laboratories And Telehealth"S Organizations With Healthcare Delivery. Also, For Convenience, It Was Decided That The Institutions Would Be Located In The State Of São Paulo. Results: The Questionnaire Was Applied In 32 (Thirty-Two) Institutions. Of These, 16 (
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 | 0.036 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".