Bibliographic record
Abstract
To prescribe or not prescribed that is the question. If William Shakespeare was a pharmacist and living today he could probably ask his fellow pharmacists this question. To put it another way, should pharmacists be allowed to extend number of refills without prior authorization from the prescriber or even initiate new prescription? In Ontario, Canada, a new bill was proposed to allow pharmacists to extend refills on prescriptions without first checking it with the original prescriber of the prescription. In New Brunswick, Canada, they were moving in the direction of allowing pharmacists to diagnose and prescribe for minor illnesses. In the last five years, seven out of ten Canadian provinces now allow pharmacists to prescribe in some fashion that include extending refills on an existing prescription or allowing them to initiate a new prescription. As one can see that the precedent has already set where pharmacists are allowed to extend refills on prescriptions without first checking it with prescribers. As one can imagine, this is rather controversial as some of the medical associations fear that this would set a wrong precedent while some physicians, albeit at individual level, are welcoming it both in Canada and the United States. The US Department of Veterans Affairs and some of the other Public Health Agencies’ pharmacists have long been extending refills on prescriptions. As a matter of fact, the VA pharmacists were recently authorized to initiate new prescriptions as mid-level practitioners. In Florida, the pharmacists have been prescribing from a limited formulary list of medications for many years now.
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 | 0.015 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.020 |
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".