Formal nursing focused academic practice partnerships for advancing nursing research and scholarship: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This scoping review protocol will be used to map the evidence regarding structure and organization of formal nursing undergraduate focused academic practice partnerships in Canada and globally. DESIGN: This scoping review will adhere to guidance provided by Chapter 11 of the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Reviews guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension checklist. METHODS: Evidence will be eligible for inclusion if published in English, within the last 10 years, and available in full text. Databases will be searched for published literature and unpublished grey literature. DISCUSSION: This protocol provides guidance on conducting a scoping review on formal nursing undergraduate focused academic practice partnerships. The review will enhance understanding of the structure and organization of formal nursing undergraduate focused academic practice partnerships, informing the design and work of future partnerships. This protocol is registered in the Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JCTRM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.195 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.114 | 0.044 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".