MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7112949527

Knowledge of caregivers of disabled elderly. Pedro Borrás Astorga Polyclinic. Pinar del Río. 2023

2023· article· en· W7112949527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing care and research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Inclusion (mineral)Sample (material)Descriptive researchDisabled peopleKnowledge level
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Healthy elderly require supervision and help, being greater in disabled elderly. Objective: to determine the level of knowledge of caregivers of disabled elderly people of the Popular Council "Ceferino Fernández Viña", Pedro Borrás Astorga health area, Pinar del Municipality Rio, during the first quarter of 2023. Methods: observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study, with a universe of 91 caregivers and a sample of 84, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Theoretical, empirical and statistical methods were used.Results: 21,4 % of the caregivers are between 40 and 49 years of age and 85,7 % are female. The care that did not have knowledge related to the duties and rights of the disabled predominated 84,5 %, the need to emphasize the lost capacities more than the conserved ones in 70,2 %. 80,9 % of the sample does have knowledge about nutrition in the disabled elderly. The level of knowledge in general of the studied caregivers was evaluated in most of the caregivers with a medium level of 55,9 %. Conclusions: most of the caregivers of the disabled elderly studied have deficiencies related to the knowledge to adequately carry out their work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.381 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)Same topicNursing care and researchFrench-language works237,207