Concept Mapping in Simulation within Nursing Education: A Scoping Review Protocol
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
BACKGROUND: Simulation has been found to enhance nursing student knowledge and confidence, as well as to improve clinical performance. The use of concept maps during simulation has been found to play a key role in student learning. There is a need to understand what is known to date about the use of concept mapping in simulation within nursing education. This will help determine the most effective ways to use concept mapping in simulation to foster learning in nursing students. Scoping review question: What is known about the context, processes, and outcomes of concept mapping in simulation within nursing education? METHODS: The scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews and will search the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycMED, EMBASE, and ERIC. This review will consider studies that explore the use of concept mapping in simulation within undergraduate nursing education and will include studies that have used qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, as well as literature reviews. Editorials, commentaries, and gray literature will be excluded. Studies published from 1992 onward will be included. The data extracted will include details about the participants, how concept mapping was used within simulation, methods, key findings, and research gaps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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