Development of a code of conduct for the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been written in the literature about the process of inculcating professional values and behaviours in pharmacy students. Before exploring how to develop student professionalism, the attributes and behaviours that constitute professionalism must be defined. The Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia (UBC) began by establishing a Professionalism Committee that undertook a rigorous process to develop an operational definition of professional conduct. With broad based input, a comprehensive Code of Conduct for members of the Faculty community, namely faculty, staff and students, was developed. The process to develop and adopt the Code, the challenges encountered along the way, and proposed next steps are discussed.
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 | 0.205 | 0.307 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".