Scoping review: a relevant methodological approach for knowledge synthesis in Brazil’s health literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A methodologically robust approach to synthesize relevant knowledge in health literature is the scoping review, which is used to answer broader questions (e.g., “What is known about this concept?”) and can be used to map evidence for research and practice decision-making. This paper discussed the importance of scoping reviews as a methodological approach for knowledge synthesis in Brazil’s health literature. Definitions and methodological steps were discussed. We examined 45 scoping reviews that were published in Brazil’s journals or available as thesis or dissertations to discuss their content and methodological characteristics. Recommendations for authors were presented in order to improve the planning, executing and reporting of further scoping reviews in Brazil. This will help Brazilian researchers and health professionals to understand when and how scoping reviews can be helpful for knowledge synthesis on health topics, including for physical activity and health research area.
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 | 0.432 | 0.540 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".