Nursing regulation literature in Canada: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant health practitioner regulation reforms are occurring across Canada. Specifically, the growing nursing workforce challenges and health system demands have accelerated the pace of changes to nursing regulation policies and practices. With growing political interest and investment to modernize nursing regulation across Canada, evidence is needed to guide regulatory decision-making. A first step is to better understand the current state of scholarship and the knowledge gaps that exist. In accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews, we will examine the nature, extent, and range of literature focused on nursing regulation in Canada. A comprehensive search strategy will be supported by an experienced health sciences librarian. Relevant records will be retrieved by systematically searching electronic library databases. Grey literature will be searched using the websites of Canadian nursing organizations and leading Canadian regulatory organizations. No limitations will be placed on year of publication. The review will include papers that explore nursing regulation in Canada, including topics such as education program accreditation or approval, licensure, standards of practice and code of conduct/ethics development and enforcement, continuing competence, discipline and conduct, nursing regulatory models, governance, and reform. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts followed by full text. Data will be extracted using a pre-developed data extraction form and analyzed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Results will be presented using evidence tables and a narrative summary. Reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Findings will inform the development of a research agenda focused on nursing regulation to inform regulatory decision-making in Canada.
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 | 0.035 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.065 | 0.100 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".