Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Colleagues, Professionals involved in the specialty areas of wound, ostomy and continence nursing are legendary. Their expertise extends across the entire spectrum of patient care. Certified WOC nurses have embraced a unique foundation of knowledge and skills and are committed to expanding that base with an ever-evolving evidence base. These highly skilled nurses bring a level of expertise that is based on beginning as a generalist and evolving into the precision of a specialist. Their understanding of the art and science of nursing provides a solid foundation for the critical problem solving that nurses certified through the WOCNCB are known for. Working as a WOCNCB-certified nurse is a complex role that demands special tools. Tools may be as simple as curved ostomy scissors, as complex as a fistula pouch or new technology, or as unique as something created by the WOCNCB-certified nurse to meet an individual patient's specific need. For the third year, the WOCNCB and the team of dedicated nurses who serve on the Evidence Based Practice Committee are proud to bring you an irreplaceable tool for your practice: Review of the 2010 Evidence for WOC and Foot Care Nursing Practice. This publication will provide you, a busy clinician, with an invisible staff of support personnel who have reviewed the literature, gleaned those articles that are pertinent to your clinical practice, and then reduced those into a succinct literature review you can use. As with the 2 previous issues, this publication mirrors the evolving research base in the areas of wound, ostomy and continence, and for the first time this year, foot care nursing. Like all valuable tools, this one will save you countless hours by providing you a synopsis of the research in a clear, usable format. The WOCNCB is proud to be able to offer you this publication again this year, in both print and online formats. It is our goal to provide you with a tool that offers a review of the new research critical to your practice. The information provided in this review will help you improve your practice, develop presentations, finalize projects and positively impact the changing world of healthcare. Please accept this valuable gift with our thanks for your own commitment to excellence in practice. As you share the evolving evidence base, you will influence the practice of others and fulfill the role that each of us plays as leaders and change agents for optimal patient care through best practice models. Sincerely, Diana L. Gallagher, MS, RN, CWOCN, CFCN, CHT President, WOCNCB http://qr.net/b4nfFigureWOCNCB Evidence Based Practice Committee Chair: Jane A. Fellows, RN, MSN, CWOCN Board Liaison: Patricia S. Collins, RN, MSN, ACNS-BC, CWOCN Ex-Oficio: Mikel L. Gray, PhD, FNP, PNP, CUNP, CCCN, FANNP, FAAN Michele R. Burdette-Taylor, PhD, RNCN, CWCN, CFCN Dorothy Doughty, MN, RN, CWOCN, FAAN Sharon C. Evans, RN, CWOCN Margaret Falconio-West, BSN, RN, APN/CNS, CWOCN, DAPWCA Susan Mueller, BSN, RN, CWOCN About the WOCNCB The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing Certification Board is a professional organization dedicated to providing consumer safety and protection by offering credentialing in the areas of wound, ostomy, continence and foot care nursing to registered nurses who meet WOCNCB's stringent qualifications and pass its certification examination. WOCNCB certified nurses provide quality care to patients in a variety of settings, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, and home healthcare. Today, nearly 6,500 WOCNCB certified nurses are practicing in the United States, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. The WOCNCB's wound, ostomy and continence certifications are accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) and the Accreditation Board for Specialty Nursing Certification (ABNSC), formerly the accreditation committee of the American Board of Specialty Nursing (ABNS). For more information, contact the WOCNCB at (888) 496-2622, e-mail [email protected] or visit www.wocncb.org.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.404 | 0.257 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".