Résumés et communications scientifiques écrites : la pointe de l’iceberg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Objectif : Cet article vise a decrire la demarche entreprise par l’Unite de recherche en pratique pharmaceutique du Departement de pharmacie pour encourager la redaction et la soumission de resumes a des congres pharmaceutiques et pour situer cette demarche dans la vie universitaire d’un centre tertiaire. Mise en contexte : De nombreux facteurs decouragent les pharmaciens qui desirent rediger et soumettre des communications ecrites courtes, comme des resumes de 200 a 300 mots, dans le cadre d’un congres scientifique. Afin de soutenir les pharmaciens de notre departement, nous avons mis en place, depuis 2002, une unite de recherche en pratique pharmaceutique pour favoriser la coordination des activites de recherche evaluative et clinique, la redaction et la soumission de communications ecrites courtes ou longues. La gestion des projets se fait par l’intranet. Conclusion : Cet article decrit la demarche de l’Unite de recherche en pratique pharmaceutique du Departement de pharmacie du CHU Sainte-Justine visant a encourager la redaction et la soumission de resumes a des congres pharmaceutiques. Cette demarche comprend la production d’un tableau de bord des activites d’enseignement, la gestion des projets de recherche par l’entremise d’un intranet et la redaction de politiques et procedures afin de faciliter la production de materiel et une veille electronique des evenements scientifiques. Abstract Objective: The purpose of this article is to describe the approach used by the Pharmacy department’s Pharmacy Practice Research Unit to foster the writingup and submission of abstracts to pharmacy conferences and, to promote use of this approach within a tertiary care university hospital. Context: Many factors, including abstracts that are required to be only 200-300 words, actively discourage pharmacists that want to write and submit short communications to scientific conferences. In order to support the pharmacists of our department, we have established, since 2002, a research unit in pharmacy practice to foster clinical and qualitative research initiatives, the writing-up and submission of written long or short communications. Projects are managed via the internet. Conclusion: This article describes the approach that was undertaken by the Pharmacy Practice Research Unit of the Pharmacy department of the CHU Sainte- Justine to encourage the writing-up and submission of abstracts to pharmacy conferences. The use of a journal to record teaching activities was introduced, the management of research projects via the use of an intranet was undertaken, and policies and procedures were developed to facilitate the production of documents and online surveillance of scientific events. Key Words: abstract; conference; continuing education.
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 | 0.054 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.031 |
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".