Bibliographic record
Abstract
J C P H – Vol. 61, n 1 – janvier–fevrier 2008 92 Council that will remain relevant for many years: customer service culture, alignment of products and services with mission, data-driven strategies, dialogue and engagement, the CEO as a broker of ideas, organizational adaptability, and alliance-building. In more clinical terms, these elements might be called patient centricity, alignment of medication therapy with outcome plans, use of evidence in clinical decisions, inclusion of the patient in the clinical team’s discussions, clinical leaders as the sources of ideas to achieve desired outcomes, adaptability to best meet the patient’s needs, and, finally, alliance-building, including the clinical elements and infrastructure needed to ensure desired patient outcomes. My suggested alignment of the administrative elements of a successful board with the more familiar clinical services delivery model of pharmaceutical care may be somewhat loose. However, these two layers of activity are critically important not just to the evolution of the practice of pharmacy, but also to our Society’s efforts to represent the collective interests of pharmacists during the revolution of our place in the interprofessional care of patients. The CSHP Council now has this additional set of lenses through which to view its continuous growth, and the members who follow in our footsteps in the years ahead will be better able to achieve in full our Society’s mission.
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 | 0.031 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.013 |
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".