MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7065789268

Entendiendo al paciente. La utilización de un análisis cualitativo para el diseño de una intervención psicoeducativa

2016· article· es· W7065789268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Académica (Acta Académica) · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodFusible alloyArticular cartilage damageTubulopathy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Las Crisis No Epilépticas de Origen Psicógeno (CNEP) se definen como cambios paroxísticos en la conducta, en la sensopercepción o en la actividad cognitiva, limitadas en el tiempo, que aparentan ser crisis epilépticas generalizadas o parciales pero que no obedecen a una descarga neuronal anómala sino que están generadas por distintos mecanismos psicológicos. Tanto la investigación como la experiencia clínica describen a los pacientes que padecen CNEP como complejos, difíciles de tratar, y con serias dificultades para la aceptación del diagnóstico y la adherencia de los tratamientos propuestos para este tipo de trastorno. Este trabajo se orienta a presentar el desarrollo de categorías de análisis temático obtenidas a partir de la toma de la entrevista McGill Illness Narrative Interview - MINI (Grouleau, Young & Kirmayer) en pacientes con diagnóstico de CNEP. Los resultados preliminares indican que los pacientes utilizan distintas formas de razonamiento sobre su malestar, lo cual incide en la elección de los tratamientos, en su efectividad y en la adherencia a los mismos. Se discuten estos resultados destacando la importancia de tener en cuenta los aspectos vinculados con la
\nvivencia e interpretación de la enfermedad por parte de los pacientes para el diseño de intervenciones psicoeducativas para las CNEP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Académica (Acta Académica)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207