Projets pilotes d’une ligne info-médicaments CLSC au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Quatre provinces canadiennes, le Manitoba, la Saskatchewan, la Colombie-Britannique et l’Ontario, offrent des services telephoniques d’information sur les medicaments a leur population. Ces services repondent a des besoins d’information qui ne peuvent etre combles par le reseau des pharmaciens de pratique privee et d’etablissements. Dans le but de documenter l’etendue et la nature des besoins de la population quebecoise en matiere d’information pharmaceutique, deux CLSC ont realise des projets pilotes de lignes d’information sur les medicaments. Les questions complexes sur les medicaments recues par les infirmieres des centrales Info-Sante etaient transferees a un pharmacien de garde lorsque le pharmacien de l’appelant ne pouvait etre rejoint. Les resultats obtenus lors des projets pilotes sont similaires a ceux observes ailleurs au Canada et confirment la pertinence de ce service. Abstract In Canada, four provinces (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario) provide a drug information hotline to the public. This is a valuable service, as pharmacists in hospital and private practice cannot fulfill all the population’s needs in terms of drug information. Wishing to document the scope and the nature of the needs of the Quebec population, two CLSC performed pilot projects to evaluate drug information hotlines. When faced with more complex questions, the Info- Sante nurses consulted a pharmacist on duty, whenever the patient’s pharmacist was not available. Results obtained from the pilot projects were similar to those obtained elsewhere in Canada, and confirm the relevance of such a service. Keywords : ambulatory care, pharmaceutical information.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".