A Practice-based Methodology on Conducting a Collaborative Scoping Review with PRISMA-ScR Model for the Separated Refugee Youth Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the novelty of the area of a 2-year study on impact of family loss and separation on refugee youth in Toronto, the research team decided to conduct a scoping review of the existing literature as a foundation document that included the extent, range, geography, and nature of research on the topic of interest. A collaborative co-design approach for this review bought in wisdom from relevant stakeholders. Arksey and O’Malley’s framework was modified for this scoping review that substantively identified the extent and magnitude of past research, research gaps, and best practice models for conducting such exploratory research on novel ideas. This framework yielded desired output, such as selection and characteristics of sources of evidence, critical appraisal within sources of evidence, and synthesis of results for the next steps of the research. Prudent researchers and professionals in this area of research, service provider agencies, and a university librarian were consulted. The PRISMA-ScR model saved time and ensured the appropriate yield of the search items. The quality of the review process was evaluated by the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Studies Checklist tool. This article displays a practical example of how the scoping review process was instrumental in a community-based research project with separated refugee youth to generate the foundational evidence for broader research. This quality-embedded process of collecting and charting data for a scoping review is transferable to similar research initiatives. The flexibility and reproducibility of this review method are commendable.
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 | 0.040 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".