Manitoba pharmacists pass new regulations for expanded scope of practice envisioned 7 years ago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A journey that began for Manitoba’s pharmacy profession close to 7 years ago passed a critical milestone in late July of 2013—when members of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association (MPhA) approved regulations supporting the province’s Pharmaceutical Act of December 2006. In a message sent to the membership on July 30, MPhA president Kyle MacNair announced that members had voted 90% in favour of the regulatory package, which implemented pharmacist authority in such areas as immunization, the ordering of lab tests and independent prescribing. Manitoba is the only province in which regulatory changes must be approved by a majority of licensed pharmacists in a vote. Two previous votes on proposed regulations had been held; in 2008, pharmacists voted against the first draft and then in 2010, approved an amended version. However, since that last vote, further changes were made in concert with the provincial government and the MPhA called for yet another vote by the membership. The target was to have the regulations in place for January 1, 2014.
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 | 0.026 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".