MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296385128 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063889

Process of youth engagement in school health promotion: a scoping review protocol

2022· review· en· W4296385128 on OpenAlexafffund
Julia Kontak, Sara Kirk

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDalhousie UniversityPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Public healthMedical educationPromotion (chess)Health promotionFamily medicineNursingAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: School environments are an essential setting to shape and influence the health and well-being of students. Health promoting school (HPS) is a whole-school approach that strengthens and builds a safe and healthy school environment for students to learn and develop. A core component of HPS is the meaningful participation of youth. Despite promising outcomes arising from youth engagement in school health promotion, there is less known on the process of how students are involved in school health promotion and in what form. This scoping review will explore and map the different components of the student engagement process in school health promotion with specific focus on whole-school approaches like HPS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow scoping review guidelines employed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews to guide reporting. We will follow the PCC mnemonic (participant, concept and context) to develop eligibility criteria. Both published and unpublished literature will be included. Databases to be searched include: CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global databases and Google Scholar. Relevant organisational websites and sources identified by experts will also be reviewed. Two reviewers will screen the title, abstract and full text of the sourced articles. Data from included articles will be charted using a data charting tool. The socioecological model and Hart's Ladder of Participation will be used to guide charting. Descriptive analysis will be conducted for quantitative data, and thematic analysis will be employed for qualitative data. Data will be displayed through tables and narrative descriptions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this study. To disseminate our work, we plan to develop an open-access publication, accompanied by a conference presentation and other knowledge translation products.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.167
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1670.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.015
Bibliometrics0.0210.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.018

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.

Opus teacher head0.627
GPT teacher head0.695
Teacher spread0.068 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207