Revising the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses Standards for Critical Care Nursing Practice: A Modified Delphi Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Since 1992, the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses (CACCN) has set the Standards of Practice for Canadian critical care nurses. The current Standards were revised in 2017, after undergoing the fifth review since inception. The Association’s practice has been to review the Standards approximately every five years. Aim: The aim of this protocol is to provide a transparent and replicable process for Standards revision. Methods: A two-phased design that includes a systematic review modelled on Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping Review methodology and second, a Modified-Delphi consensus process. The reporting of this protocol is guided by PRISMA-P reporting guidelines. Outcomes: All items included in the final consensus will be utilized to create the revised sixth edition of the CACCN Standards for Critical Care Nursing Practice. The standards will be published in the Canadian Journal of Critical Care Nursing, posted on the CACCN website (www.caccn.ca), and shared among the CACCN network to help inform Critical Care Nursing practice in Canada. Keywords: practice standards, systematic review, modified-Delphi, critical care nursing, protocol
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 | 0.347 | 0.362 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".