Facing forward: The development of a cancer nursing knowledge and practice framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology (CANO/ACIO) is the national organization supporting nurses to develop and promote excellence in oncology nursing practice, education, research and leadership. To support their mission, CANO/ACIO has developed Standards of Care for cancer patients and Standards and Competencies for Oncology Nurses caring for these individuals (CANO, 2001, 2006). Since the creation of the first standards for specialized oncology nursing in 2006, cancer care has changed considerably with increased cancer occurrence and prevalence, new therapies including oral agents, and cancer care transitioning from specialized treatment centres (Canadian Cancer Society, 2019). Given the changing landscape for nursing practice, CANO/ACIO embarked on a process to update the current standards with the aim of including the role of nurses caring for cancer patients and families in all settings. Through this process experts identified the need for a national nursing framework to assist with the integration of current standards and describe nursing contributions to high quality cancer care. This article describes the process that CANO/ACIO utilized to establish the CANO Nursing Knowledge and Practice Framework and Toolkit for Cancer Care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".