Knowledge and practices of youth awareness on death and dying in school settings: a systematic scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Awareness-raising and education have been identified as strategies to counter the taboo surrounding death and dying. As the favoured venue for youth education, schools have an essential role to play in informing future decision-makers. However, school workers are not comfortable addressing the subjects of death and dying, which, unlike other social issues, have no guidelines to influence awareness of these subjects in youth. Objectives To systematically explore the knowledge and practices on raising awareness about death and dying in schools, the viewpoints of the people involved (young people, school workers; parents), and the factors that either promote or hinder awareness practices. Method The scoping review method of Levac and Colquhoun (Implement Sci 5(1):69, 2010) will be used. Using a combination of keywords and descriptors, a body of literature will be identified through 15 databases and through grey literature searches, manual searches, consultation of key collaborators, and the list of relevant literature. Publications since 2009 will be selected if they relate directly to awareness-raising about death and dying in schools. Writings will be selected and extracted by two independent people, and conflicts resolved by consensus. The extracted data will be synthesized using a thematic analysis method. Experts from a variety of disciplines (health sciences, humanities, social sciences, and education) will be consulted to enhance the interpretation of the preliminary results. Results will be presented in narrative form and will include tables and diagrams. Conclusion The results of this scoping review will contribute to the development of educational practices adapted to young people and to the identification of future avenues of research on awareness of death and dying.
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 | 0.138 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.009 |
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".