Bibliographic record
Abstract
J C P H – Vol. 60, no 2 – avril 2007 152 areas, for example, prescribing of emergency contraception in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Quebec. Quebec legislation permits pharmacists to modify prescriptions written by other prescribers. In British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec, pharmacists may prescribe upon delegation from another prescriber. In spring 2007, legislation will come into effect in Alberta granting pharmacists the privilege of prescribing both independently and in collaboration with others. Members of the public, physicians, and others have challenged the ability of pharmacists to prescribe appropriately to enhance patient care. In response to this “new growth”, the CSHP Advocacy Committee is developing strategies to assist the Society’s branches to advocate for the role of pharmacists as capable prescribers. The Committee’s work will support the pharmacist’s role in a collaborative prescribing model to improve patient health outcomes and to increase the successful and efficient delivery of pharmaceutical care. As a united group and as individuals we must continue to relay to stakeholders the importance of pharmacist prescribing to facilitate positive medication outcomes for patients. I know that many of you are ready for this challenge; after all, spring has arrived and it is time for new growth!
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.025 |
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".