MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1557676595 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v58i1.289

CSHP Rules the Roost

2005· article· en· W1557676595 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Emily Musing

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)PharmacyPolitical scienceRoosterManagementLibrary scienceHistoryLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

J C P H – Vol. 58, n 1 – fevrier 2005 52 years of planning and effort. Humanity reached the moon and the Concorde took its first supersonic flight in Rooster years. Similarly, this year we can look forward to positive results from such diverse efforts as CSHP’s work with the Canadian Association of Pharmacy Students and Interns in developing a critical path for future collaboration; our brief “The National Pharmacare Debate”, prepared for the 2004 First Ministers’ Conference; our stakeholder presentation to the Association of Deans of Pharmacy about entry-level PharmD programs; and our continued advocacy on the role of the pharmacist in quality drug use management. Finally, the Year of the Rooster is one of pageantry and display; examples include Queen Victoria’s Jubilee, the investiture of Prince Charles as Prince of Wales, and his marriage to Lady Diana Spencer. So be prepared for some major CSHP events and spectacles as well! The Professional Practice Conference is always an event not to be missed (even if it is held in Toronto in the dead of winter!), and mark your calendars now for our Annual General Meeting in Ottawa in summer 2005. All in all, there should be plenty to “crow” about in 2005!

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0120.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1700.043

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→