Equitable health care delivery for adult Nova Scotians: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify international and Nova Scotian standards of care, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and policies informing equitable health care. INTRODUCTION: The lack of attention given to intersectional health care needs of diverse populations perpetuates health inequities among underserved groups, creating an urgent need for health care reform globally. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will include standards of care, CPGs, and policies focusing on equity-related health indicators. Academic and gray literature sources, published from 2014 to present, will be considered if they relate to one or more defined equity-related health indicators. Sources will be excluded if they do not explicitly relate to standards of care, CPGs, or policies for equitable health care delivery. METHODS: This scoping review will be guided by intersectionality theory and conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Academic databases MEDLINE ALL (Ovid) and Embase will be searched using identified search terms. An advanced Google search will be undertaken to identify gray literature sources. A 2-phased approach will be conducted to identify sources that will be synthesized and presented in tabular format using equity-related health indicators, providing an inventory of health equity standards of care, CPGs, or policies to be disseminated to health care providers in Nova Scotia. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6rnx2.
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 | 0.107 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.015 |
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".