Research Priorities of Korean Oncology Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic nursing research activities in South Korea began in the 1970s, but research into oncology did not begin until the mid-1980s. Although the number of Korean oncology nursing studies has increased steadily since then, no national agenda exists for future research in oncology nursing. This study involved a descriptive survey of oncology nursing research priorities among Korean oncology nurses. The analysis included 59 members of the Korean Oncology Nursing Society. The questionnaire used by the Oncology Nursing Society in a US survey was revised and translated into Korean. The questionnaire contained 108 items. In addition, respondents were asked to rank 5 items in order of research priority. The Korean Oncology Nursing Society members ranked prevention of cancer and cancer risk reduction as the top research priority, followed by pain management, quality of life, hospice and end-of-life care, and standards of care. These findings provide the basis for developing a Korean oncology nursing research agenda, and for determining the direction of oncology research funding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".