Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Mise en contexte : Les pharmaciens en etablissements de sante prennent largement part aux activites cliniques afin d’optimiser la pharmacotherapie des patients et d’assurer une gestion sure et efficace des medicaments. Toutefois, la publication d’articles scientifiques est un monde encore sous-exploite au Quebec et ailleurs dans le monde. L’objectif de cet article consiste a decrire les barrieres et les motivations liees a la publication d’un article scientifique, a decrire les etapes menant a la publication et a proposer des trucs et astuces afin de mener a bien un tel projet. Discussion : S’il veut pouvoir publier, tout auteur doit trouver une motivation. Le partage des connaissances avec les collegues devrait constituer sa motivation premiere. Toutefois, plusieurs barrieres, dont le doute en ses capacites ou le manque de temps, peuvent freiner le processus de redaction d’un article et pousser l’auteur a la procrastination. Celui-ci peut neanmoins les contourner en divisant la tâche en plusieurs phases, qui la rendent ainsi plus digerable. Nous proposons treize etapes menant a la publication. Conclusion : Les pharmaciens en etablissements de sante peuvent ecrire sur divers aspects de leur pratique ou traduire en publications leurs resultats de projets de recherche, comme des projets de residence. Il est important de developper une culture d’ecriture au sein de la communaute des pharmaciens d’etablissement de sante. En effet, la publication demande un engagement personnel et une bonne planification. Abstract Background: Pharmacists in healthcare institutions participate significantly in clinical activities in order to optimize patient pharmacotherapy and to ensure an effective management of medication. Despite this experience, they publish few scientific articles, neither in Quebec nor in the rest of the world. The purpose of this article is to describe some of the obstacles and motivations involved in the publication of a scientific article, to describe the stages leading to publication, and to suggest some tips and best practices for succeeding in this project. Discussion: Anybody who wants to publish must find a motivation to do so. Sharing knowledge with colleagues should be a primary motivation. Nevertheless, several obstacles such as uncertainty about one’s abilities or the lack of time can put a stop to an attempt at composing an article and induce procrastination. This can be avoided, however, by dividing the task into several phases that make it quite doable. We suggest thirteen steps leading to publication. Conclusion: Pharmacists in healthcare institutions can write about various aspects of their practice or translate their research project results into publications, such as their residency projects. It is important to develop a writing culture in the community of pharmacists in healthcare institutions. As it is, publication calls for personal commitment and good planning. Key words: writing, scientific article; publish; publication; pharmacy
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 | 0.046 | 0.213 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.009 |
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".