The Use of a Clinical Resource Nurse for Newly Graduated Nurses in a Pediatric Oncology Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pediatric oncology nursing unit at the Alberta Children's Hospital experienced a large influx of new staff nurses between May 2008 and November 2008. There were 16 in total, and only a few had previous experience, whereas the majority was newly graduated nurses. As a solution to the high numbers of new staff nurses, the role of a Resource Nurse was developed as a temporary position to assist new staff nurses with their patient assignment, prioritize their day, and deal with complex patient procedures/treatments. Also, the Resource Nurse assisted all staff on the unit in dealing with increased patient acuity, chemotherapy administration, acuity issues, family teaching, and complicated family situations. A total of 55 prebooked shifts were scheduled from November 2008 to January 2009. A questionnaire was handed out to the staff nurses as a means to determine the effectiveness of having a Resource Nurse work on the unit. Twenty-three nurses responded by filling out the confidential questionnaire. Overall, respondents reported that the Resource Nurse was beneficial to their practice on the unit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".