Characteristics of nursing care expanded by Antroposophy: a scope review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Mapping the characteristics of nursing care expanded by Anthroposophy in health services. Inclusion criteria: Scientific articles, monographies, dissertations and theses, without limitations regarding the health care scenario, geographic context, time frame or language limitation. Methods: This is a scoping review protocol, in accordance with the methodology of Joanna Briggs Institute, and the recommendations of PRISMA-ScR. Data searches will be carried out in Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), CINAHL, Der Merkurstab, DiVA; EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, SciELO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and in dissertation and theses catalogs such as BDTD, CAPES Catalog, CyberTesis, NDLTD, RCAAP, Theses Canada. The publications selections will be performed in pairs and independently via the Rayyan platform, with consultation of a third reviewer in case of disagreements, using own data extraction tool. The data will be presented in a flowchart and tables, accompanied by a narrative summary.
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 | 0.022 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".