Capability as a concept in advanced practice nursing and education: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and map how the concept of capability in advanced practice nursing and education is described in the literature. INTRODUCTION: Advanced practice nursing and education is often described in terms of the achievement of competencies. The concept of capability has been proposed as a more accurate description of the attributes of advanced practice nursing. Definitions of capability in advanced practice nursing vary, but often focus on the integration of prior knowledge, skills, resources, judgment, and experience when solving unanticipated problems or working in new situations. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies addressing the concept of individual capability in any setting related to advanced practice nursing education and practice. The working definition of capability in this review is a combination of knowledge, skills, experience, and competencies that enables advanced practice nurses to provide appropriate care for patients in both familiar and unfamiliar clinical settings. Advanced practice nurses will include nurses with both graduate education and an expanded scope of practice. METHODS: Eight academic databases will be searched for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods study designs. The gray literature search will include policy and practice documents from nursing and health organization websites. Two reviewers will independently complete title and abstract screening prior to full-text review and data extraction. Articles published in English from 1975 to the present will be included. Other languages will be included if translations are available.
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 | 0.006 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".