Taking action: An exploration of the actions of exemplary oncology nurses when there is a sense of hopelessness and futility perceived by registered nurses at diagnosis, during treatment, and in palliative situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"There is nothing more that can be done" is a phrase that may occasionally cross the minds of oncology nurses. This paper reports on the actions of exemplary oncology nurses who were faced with such situations where their colleagues gave up or turned away. The research question, "What actions do exemplary clinical oncology nurses (RNs) undertake in patient-care situations where further nursing interventions seem futile?" prefaced data collection via a secure website where 14 Canadian clinical oncology registered nurses (RNs) provided narratives documenting their actions. Thematic analysis utilized QRS NVivo 10 software and hand coding. Four themes were generated from data analysis: advocacy, not giving up, genuine presence, and moral courage. Implications for practice and future research are provided.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".