Bibliographic record
Abstract
research and education, this event provided an opportunity to commend Peter Loewen and Brian Tuttle on their new status as Fellows and to give $22,500 worth of grants toward 4 research projects. In February, CSHP met again twice over the issue of medicinal marihuana, first with other pharmacy organizations and then with a variety of stakeholders. During these sessions, Health Canada solicited feedback on further proposed amendments to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, targeted for completion by summer 2004, and provided the opportunity for an exchange of ideas and concerns among stakeholders. A pilot project involving pharmacy-based distribution is among the issues under consideration. (For additional information, see http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/ocma.) One more external liaison event was held in February. The Canadian Foundation for Pharmacy invited the executive staff of Canadian pharmacy associations and the deans of the Canadian faculties and schools of pharmacy to participate in a workshop on how to design effective innovation. CSHP staff members can’t wait to unveil the Society’s new Web site. It is shaping up very nicely: a more functional architecture and a modern, visually attractive concept! We hope you will like it just as much as you liked the PPC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads 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".