Bibliographic record
Abstract
C J H P – Vol. 56, No. 4 – September 2003 J C P H – Vol. 56, n 4 – septembre 2003 positive message to legislators and bureaucrats across the country is key, and the template letter is one way to do this. Along with many other pharmacy organizations, CSHP has confirmed its support of and participation in the Pharmacy Sector Study, sponsored by Human Resources Development Canada. This study will examine practice model and human resources issues involving pharmacists and pharmacy technicians across a variety of practice settings. Later this year, members will be faced with another important opportunity to advocate for our profession. In late 2003 or early 2004 the results of the Canadian Adverse Events Study, funded by the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, will be released. Until now, there have been no comprehensive studies of adverse events in Canadian hospitals. The study will provide information on the rate and types of adverse events occurring in acute care in Canada, drawing attention to the issue of safety in Canadian hospitals. When the study is made public, hospital leaders, the media, and patients will all be searching for information on how to enhance patient safety. CSHP and its members are well positioned to supply such information, through our standards, position papers, and expertise. Patients and administrators will be turning to you and your hospital pharmacy colleagues for advice, and CSHP will be there to provide individual members and branches with the background information they will need to answer questions and to advocate for the role of the hospital pharmacist. So why do we speak up? Very simply, it is because people listen. Take the opportunity to help advocate PRESIDENTIAL OFFICER’S REPORT
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.307 | 0.191 |
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".