MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387083511 · doi:10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100279

A scoping review protocol of anti-racism programs and practices in higher education: Implications for developing interventions to advance equity

2023· review· en· W4387083511 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Educational Research Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Utah
KeywordsPsycINFORacismPsychological interventionSystematic reviewScopusPsychologyMEDLINEMedical educationApplied psychologyPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States and Canada, racism continues to persist in higher education systems. Hate violence and racial trauma on campuses are significant barriers to health and well-being, particularly for Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC). Additionally, higher education systems often fail to successfully bridge achievement gaps to facilitate the success of BIPOC. This protocol describes a scoping review of anti-racism efforts through higher education programs and practices from 1950 to 2022. No previous scoping reviews have been identified that illustrate anti-racist organizational programs and practices in higher education settings. This scoping review protocol aims to identify and map the characteristics of anti-racism programs and practices (occurring at the organizational level) in higher education settings throughout the United States and Canada. A systematic search will be conducted using nine electronic databases, with date limits from 1950 to 2022: Academic Search Ultimate (Ebscohost), ERIC (Ebscohost), APA PsycINFO (Ebscohost), Medline (OVID), Dissertations & Theses Global (ProQuest), Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), Social Work Abstracts (Ebscohost), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest) and Scopus (Elsevier). Reference lists of documents included in data charting will be searched. The scoping review will follow guidance from the most recent 2020 version of the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and PRISMA reporting guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Two reviewers will perform full-text screening of preselected studies independently to select studies according to inclusion criteria. Covidence will be used to upload search results, screen abstracts and full text study reports. Data will be extracted, and findings and characteristics synthesized in a narrative summary. Additionally, frequency counts of concepts, populations, and characteristics will be presented. Our scoping review will be the first to map anti-racism programs and practices in higher education. It is anticipated the findings will interest policymakers, researchers, and higher education practitioners concerned about creating interventions aimed at improving social, economic, and environmental factors which shape health equity and empower underrepresented communities towards increased educational attainment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.786
GPT teacher head0.750
Teacher spread0.036 · 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