Experiences of Agency Nurses in Acute Care Settings: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been an increase in the dependence upon agency nurses in Ontario hospitals since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, 2023) yet no literature has examined the experiences of this cohort of nurses practicing in acute care hospitals. The pandemic exacerbated an already stretched-thin health care sector (Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, 2022) and the dependence on this cohort of nurses dramatically increased in tandem. In this review, we will explore the experiences of agency nurses practicing in acute hospital settings. This scoping review protocol outlines our rationale and plan for examining the literature and will provide a broad overview of the literature in order to clarify key concepts, identify knowledge gaps and will be utilized as a hypothesis-generating exercise (Tricco et al., 2016).
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 | 0.093 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.010 |
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".