MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1479864655 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v53i3.743

A 3-Year Commitment–Adventure

2000· article· en· W1479864655 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Donna Wheeler-Usher

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNursing
ThématiqueNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPledgeObligationPolitical scienceAdventurePresidential systemPublic relationsAction (physics)National serviceManagementLawComputer sciencePolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The first time a person is approached to run for a leadership position in a charitable or professional organization, he or she is compelled to think, “How much of a commitment will this be?” When one becomes involved on the presidential track at the national level of our organization, CSHP, the commitment is 3 years of service on the Executive Committee — as President-Elect, President, and Past President. The term “commitment” is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows: • an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action • a pledge or undertaking. I’m sure that many of my predecessors (Kelly Babcock, Donna Pipa, Bob Nakagawa, Robin Ensom, Nancy Roberts, and Larry Legare, among others) would concur that the first definition does occasionally hit us smack between the eyes during that 3-year CSHP executive term. However, I know that they all accepted the commitment and responsibility because of the second definition — the “pledge”. People who follow the path of becoming CSHP President do so as a pledge to the membership, to the profession, and to the Society. Each individual who takes on this role wants to better our professional practice. Becoming involved at this level of leadership provides the opportunity to “make a difference”, and taking this pledge introduces one to a 3-year adventure complete with expected and unexpected challenges. In view of the recent changes in our executive “line-up”, it may be helpful for CSHP members to learn about the responsibilities that your executive officers carry for their 3-year terms. Each new presidential officer is assigned a portfolio that is carried throughout the 3 years of service on the Executive Committee. These 3 portfolios are designed to even out the workload that was once assigned primarily to the President. The portfolios also reflect CSHP’s Vision and keep responsibilities directed toward achieving the Vision. The Vision Liaison Officer is responsible for all initiatives directed at achieving CSHP’s Vision. Committees, task forces, and initiatives that fall under the guidance of this portfolio include Educational Services, Pharmaceutical Care Advisory, Resolutions, Strategic Planning, Pharmacist Prescribing, Seamless Care, Home Health Care, and, most recently, coordination of the decision process for a potential change in the Society’s name. The External Liaison Officer is responsible for all CSHP activities that occur in collaboration with government, faculties of pharmacy, professional organizations, and patient groups with which CSHP may collaborate. The presidential officer responsible for this portfolio must always ensure that CSHP’s external activities are in tune with CSHP’s Vision. Committees, task forces, and CSHP representatives and liaisons falling under the guidance of this portfolio include Drug Labelling and Packaging, Government and Health Policy Planning, Public Relations, Pharmacy Specialty Networks, Pharmacy Technicians, Medication Error Reporting System, Entry-Level PharmD Program, CAPSI–CSHP Poster Competition, and representatives and liaisons to more than 20 organizations, committees, and boards outside of CSHP (e.g., Canadian Pharmacists Association, American Society of HealthSystem Pharmacists, Association of Faculties of Pharmacy of Canada, National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities, Canadian Association of Pharmacy Students and Interns, Canadian Association of Pharmacy Technicians, and Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada). The Internal Liaison Officer is responsible for all internal CSHP activities that directly or indirectly bring the Society closer to achieving the goals set out in its Vision. Committees, task forces, and representation that fall under the guidance of this portfolio include Awards, Bylaws, Branch Web Site Development, Membership, Standards and Publications, Research, Bulk Compounding Guidelines Review, Standards of Practice Review, Latex Allergies, Review of CSHP National Committee/Task Force Structure and Method of Business, Board of Fellows, and the Canadian Hospital Pharmacy Residency Board. The “pledge” made by all volunteers who take on this level of CSHP leadership is fulfilled within the particular officer’s portfolio but also involves sharing in the decisionmaking of the other officers on the Executive Committee. Although the presidential officers’ responsibilities differ in nature, the Executive Committee (which includes the Executive Director, the Director of Finance, and the 3 presidential officers) always works as a team. This creates, as Kelly Babcock frames it, “a ton of email”; however, the end result is coordinated actions and initiatives that benefit the membership, the profession, and the Society. Restriction of freedom? Yes, sometimes. A pledge? Always. An adventure? You’d better believe it!

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,070
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,235

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,004
Communication savante0,0090,008
Science ouverte0,0020,014
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,011
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0700,043

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2000
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacyMême sujetNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipTravaux en français237 207