CLINICAL SIMULATION WITH CYBERPATIENT: PROTOCOL FOR A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The proposed scoping review will identify and map the available evidence on the use of clinical simulation with Cyberpatient in the teaching/learning process of nursing students. Method: This protocol was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute manual, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Extension of Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will search Medline/PubMed; Base; Web of Science; Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). The gray literature will be searched in the Catalog of Theses and Dissertations of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES); DART-Europe E-Theses Portal; Electronic Theses Online Service (EthOS); Open Access Scientific Repository of Portugal (RCAAP); National ETD Portal; Theses Canada; Portal of Tesis Latinoamericanas; World Cat Dissertations and Theses. The main research question is “What evidence is available regarding the use of clinical simulation with Cyberpatient in the teaching/learning process of nursing students? Studies will be included if they have the full text available, .... Studies published as research articles, theses, dissertations and papers will also be considered, without restrictions of place, time or language. Data will be extracted using a spreadsheet adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Quantitative and qualitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively. The protocol of this review will be registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) in order to guarantee transparency and pioneering of this review.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.213 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".