Revision of an undergraduate nursing oncology course using the Taylor Curriculum Review Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients diagnosed with cancer require intensive nursing care and support across all healthcare settings (Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology [CANO], 2015). Advances in this nursing specialty and the resulting changes to practice add to the complexity of the nursing role. Clinical improvements impact the preparation of nursing students transitioning into this area of practice. The inclusion of an oncology curriculum in undergraduate programs can help to develop fundamental competencies for undergraduates in this specialty (Lockhart et al., 2013). A fourth-year undergraduate nursing oncology course was recently evaluated at the University of Calgary to ensure content was congruent with current practice. Since the course was initially developed in 2011, there have only been minor updates, potentially resulting in out-of-date content. A curriculum review process outlined by the Taylor Institute of Teaching and Learning was used to complete this course revision (Dyjur & Kalu, 2016). The findings of this course revision indicate the need to provide more student-centred learning, to discuss the implementation of recent treatments, and to provide more clinically centered literature on recent developments in oncology.
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 | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| 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 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".