Bibliographic record
Abstract
JCPH – Vol. 68, no 2 – mars–avril 2015 182 of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities, the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the Canadian Association of Pharmacy in Oncology, the Association des pharmaciens des etablissements de sante du Quebec, the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada, and the Canadian Association of Pharmacy Technicians. CSHP’s advocacy efforts at both the National and Branch levels are necessary and appropriate, but advocacy at the grassroots level is crucial. At the front line, dealing with the daily workload and patient care demands, individual practitioners often find it difficult to see how they personally can be advocates for change and for the profession. I would invite you to consider the possibility that each and every interaction that a pharmacist has with either a health care professional or a patient is a moment of advocacy, not just for the profession, but also for the patient. What a powerful combination.
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 | 0.133 | 0.214 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".