Scoping reviews and rapid reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scoping reviews and rapid reviews are intentional approaches to systematically synthesize research. In sport and exercise psychology, scoping reviews can summarize information to describe what is known on a relevant topic. Rapid reviews offer accelerated knowledge synthesis through a streamlined timely and cost-effective approach that is directed and guided by stakeholders. Both scoping and rapid reviews are used to synthesize the literature, and also to describe and assess conceptual, theoretical, and methodological trends, identify gaps in research and practice, and inform future sport and exercise psychology research and practice directions. We offer evidence-based and field-specific guidelines to conduct scoping reviews and rapid reviews. These types of syntheses in sport and exercise psychology are important for advancing research and practice and highlight the value of collaborations with key stakeholders. Our guidelines will help with the uniformity and dependability of scoping and rapid reviews while also advancing the impact and value of this type of research.
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 | 0.292 | 0.613 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.059 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.041 |
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".