MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995049822 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v65i4.1159

Experiential Training for Pharmacy Students: Time for a New Approach

2012· article· en· W1995049822 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kevin Hall, Emily Musing, Douglas A. Miller, James E. Tisdale

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPharmacyPharmacy practiceBlueprintExperiential learningPharmacistMedical educationAccountabilityScope of practiceScope (computer science)PsychologyInterpersonal communicationSet (abstract data type)MedicineNursingHealth carePedagogyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pharmacy profession in Canada finds itself in the midst of transformational change. The regulation and expanded scope of practice of pharmacy technicians that is under way across the country, combined with the advent of new drug distribution technologies in both the hospital and community practice settings, have created the opportunity for pharmacists to largely relinquish their traditional role in the drug distribu tion system. This change will permit pharmacists to take on new and expanded patient-centred roles and responsibilities. However, patient-centred care requires a different set of skills and training (e.g., clinical practice skills, critical thinking skills, decision-making skills under conditions of uncertainty, collab orative interpersonal practice skills) than those that were needed to be a good pharmacist in the past (e.g., attention to detail, accuracy, risk aversion). Pharmacy educational programs will have to produce confident graduates who are able and willing to assume responsibility and accountability for drug therapy management. Experiential training is viewed as an essential requirement for the development of these skills. As the profession moves forward with implementation of the Vision for Pharmacy contained within the Blueprint for Pharmacy, 1 there has been

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.014
Scholarly communication0.0210.021
Open science0.0070.031
Research integrity0.0150.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.004

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 head0.445
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations56
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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