Exploring the terminology and descriptions of services that connect children with neurodisability and their families to needed support in the community: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to fill a gap in knowledge on terminology and descriptions of services that connect children with neurodisability and their families to needed support in the community. INTRODUCTION: Children with neurodisability represent a significant population with a demonstrated need for coordinated support. Patient navigation is a concept that was founded on the principle of coordinating care for patients based on individual needs. Despite the history of patient navigation, a definition for the concept itself is lacking. Moreover, children with neurodisability and their families are not often the target population of such initiatives. It is not known whether existing terminology and descriptions encompass the particular needs of children with neurodisability and their families. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will examine published, peer-reviewed articles related to navigation-type resources, support, and services within the community as intended for children under the age of 18 years with neurodisability, and their families. All eligible studies pertaining to this context will be examined. METHODS: A preliminary search was completed to find initial search terms, upon which a full search strategy was developed. Search results yielded from PubMed (NCBI), MEDLINE (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCO) were screened to ensure articles were peer-reviewed, published in English from 1990 onward, and relevant to both children with neurodisability/their families and navigation-related resources. A full-text review of relevant articles will be conducted and data extracted using the included extraction tool. Extracted terminology and concepts will be analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach, which will inform a working definition of navigational services and related terms. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/cbvy9.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".