<i>Your</i> Choice for Peer-Reviewed, Patient-Centred Clinical Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thank you to all the pharmacists who participated in our recently conducted readership studies. Publications like CPJ undertake this type of research periodically to assess how well we're meeting our readers' needs and to solicit ideas for future content. Respondents found CPJ to be the superior Canadian pharmacy publication for in-depth clinical content, dissemination of research results and our specialty, clinical practice guidelines! On behalf of our authors, reviewers, editorial board members and staff, I'd like to pass along a huge “Thank You” for that vote of confidence. In this issue, you'll find more of that great content, including a clinical review of a novel anticoagulant agent (see page 83), a discussion of the latest Hypertension Guidelines for Pharmacists1 (which incidentally was the most viewed article on www.cpjournal.ca in December 2011) (see page 66), and more of the Canadian pharmacy practice research that you'll only find in CPJ. You may ask why the publication of this research is important (or why you should care about it at all!). Our feature article on the BC pharmacy adaptation program (see page 78) provides a perfect answer. It's a prime example of high-quality research into the value of pharmacist interventions, which once validated and disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication process, provides the credible evidence needed for advocacy and reimbursement discussions with governments and other third-party payors. In other words, it's an academic exercise with a very practical (and necessary) application for pharmacists expanding their scope of practice for the benefit of patients. We recognize that many of our readers are clinicians, practising under ever-increasing time and patient-load pressures, and therefore needing concise, practice-relevant information presented in an easy-to-use format. With that in mind, we hope you'll appreciate some of the updated visual elements included in this issue — designed to make it easier for readers to get to the key points or practice-relevant highlights of each article. For those who prefer to access information digitally, we encourage you to visit our fully searchable, open access online edition at www.cpjournal.ca. If you haven't visited the site recently, make sure to check out the web exclusive and early-release articles and other online-only features. You can also join our online discussions and access even more content by following us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/cpjournal and Twitter @CPhAAPhC#cpjournal. Let us know what you think of this or any issue — your feedback is always welcome! Contact ac.stsicamrahp@neellikr.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".