The simulation design in health and nursing: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of this study were to map the components of the simulation design in health and nursing and to propose a classification based on their definitions to support the planning of simulation-based experiences. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHOD: Searches were performed in the databases LILACS, Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar and ProQuest Thesis and Dissertation were performed, without time limitation, to identify studies about simulation design. RESULTS: This study mapped 19 components of the simulation design found in 26 studies included, which can contribute to the development of simulation-based experiences, classified into structural, methodological and theoretical-pedagogical components. The simulation design can be described according to its fundamental components: structural-define the basic formulation of a simulation in terms of infrastructure and conceptual framework; methodological-define the participants, roles and the instruction format; and theoretical-pedagogical-define the educational references used to support the simulation strategy.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it