A scoping review of interprofessional education within Canadian nursing literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this scoping review is to examine the nature of the interprofessional education (IPE) discussion that the Canadian nursing profession is having within the Canadian peer-reviewed nursing literature. An electronic database search of CINAHL was conducted using a modified Arksey & O'Malley scoping review framework. Peer-reviewed, English-language articles published in Canadian nursing journals from January 1981 to February 2016 were retrieved. Articles were included if they discussed IPE, or described an educational activity that met our conceptual definition of IPE. A total of 88 articles were screened, and 11 articles were eligible for analysis. Analysis revealed that this body of literature does not seem to be purposefully engaging Canadian nurses in a critical discourse about the role of IPE. The majority of articles located were reflective or commentaries. At the time of this review, there was a paucity of theoretically informed empirical research articles on IPE in the nursing literature. While IPE may be viewed by some critical scholars as a means of shifting the control of healthcare delivery traditionally held by medicine to other professions, our results suggest that this may not be the case in the Canadian nursing profession.
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 | 0.016 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.053 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".