Study Protocol for a Scoping Review on Social Presence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of e-learning and distance education, there has been a significant amount of research activity surrounding the construct social presence. However, a scoping review on social presence has yet to be conducted. Therefore, the purpose of this brief review is to provide an overview of the research protocol developed for a scoping review of social presence. The methodology developed by Arksey and O’Malley for the conducting of scoping reviews will guide the study. It will include a search of six electronic databases followed by a two-stage screening process. Of those studies identified for inclusion, data will be extracted using a standardized form. For data pertaining to study characteristics a descriptive numerical analysis will occur. A qualitative content analysis will be undertaken for the qualitative data extracted. Results will be charted and mapped enabling the development of a conceptual framework and best practices in the development and application of social presence. Results of the scoping review once completed, will be discussed within the context of current literature along with the identification of research gaps, limitations, and recommendations for future research. Résumé Le champ du e-learning et de la formation à distance est le lieu de nombreuses activités de recherches portant sur la notion de la présence sociale. Cependant, aucun examen de la portée sur la présence sociale n’a encore été mené. Par conséquent, l’objectif de cette brève revue de littérature est d’offrir une vue d’ensemble du protocole de recherche développé dans le cadre d’un examen de la portée sur la présence sociale. La méthodologie développée par Arksey et O’Malley pour la conduite des examens de la portée guidera cette étude. Elle va comprendre une recherche portant sur six bases de données électroniques suivit par un processus de sélection en deux étapes. Les données des études retenues seront extraites en utilisant un formulaire standardisé. Les données relatives aux caractéristiques de l’étude feront quant à elles l’objet d’une analyse numérique descriptive. Une analyse qualitative de contenu sera mise en œuvre pour analyser les données qualitatives extraites. Les résultats seront cartographiés et présentés sous forme de graphiques favorisant le développement d’un cadre conceptuel et l’identification de bonnes pratiques dans le développement et l’application de la présence sociale. Une fois l’examen de la portée arrivé à terme, ses résultats seront discutés dans le contexte de la littérature actuelle allant de pair avec le pointage des lacunes et limites des recherches menées jusqu’à présent accompagné de recommandations pour celles à venir.
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 | 0.152 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.140 | 0.035 |
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".