Criação e Validação de uma Escala de Complexidade da Intervenção Social com Adultos em Contexto Hospitalar (ECISACH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was intended to develop and validate an instrument that measures the complexity of social intervention with adults in a hospital context. Intervention in Social Work as a critical and reflective practice, conceptualizes the complexity of the social action, its relation with the familial interaction levels and clinical condition of patients in the Central Lisbon Hospital Centre, as subjects of action. Data were collected from exploratory through the application of the scale, a new tool concepted in a new way, as there are no measurement tools that have the purpose of measuring the degree of complexity of by social worker action in the hospital context. The social workers that participated in the validation of this scale belong to four Hospitals ins Lisbon area (Hospital of St. Joseph the Capuchin Hospital, Santa Marta Hospital and Hospital Dona Estefania - adults). At the analytical level special mention should be the concept of complexity and family whose connection with the intervention turns out to have agreat influence on the dynamics and resolution of a social problem. This scale is composed by 12 items, was ministered in two groups:, patients with family and patients with no family and was applied in random 233 cases at in a social temporal space of three months. For the validation of the scale, we used the Cronbach’s alpha to examine the reliability of the scale. It was observed that the internal consistency is reasonable (α=0.762) in the patients with family and is good (α=0.840) in the group of patients with no family.
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 | 0.051 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".