MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986808149 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v68i2.1442

Staff Pharmacists’ Perspectives on Contemporary Pharmacy Practice Issues

2015· article· en· W1986808149 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kevin Hall, Jean‐François Bussières

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyPharmacy practiceClinical pharmacyMedicineUnit (ring theory)Family medicineMedical educationLibrary scienceNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poster presented at the 40th CSHP Banff Seminar, Banff, Alberta, March 21-23, 2014 Conclusions Staff Pharmacists Perspectives on Contemporary Pharmacy Practice Issues Kevin Hall, Jean-Francois Bussieres Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Pharmacy department and Pharmacy Practice Research Unit, CHU Sainte Justine and Faculty of Pharmacy, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207