Proposal of the Implementation of an International Pharmacy Graduate Preliminary Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, graduates of international pharmacy schools can apply to take the Korean Pharmacist Licensing Examination after passing a review by the Accreditation Board of the Pharmacy Schools and Licenses. However, since the educational content of different schools and the roles of pharmacists differ from country to country, a preliminary examination might be necessary before the Pharmacist Licensing Examination. To prepare to implement a preliminary examination for foreign pharmacy graduates in Korea, we summarized the preliminary examinations used in four other countries and presented a proposal for a preliminary examination. Data were collected via the internet and through telephone interviews with appropriate persons. The proposal was revised after a public forum. There are preliminary examinations in the USA, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, and these involve written, oral, practice, and English proficiency tests. We proposed that the Korean preliminary examination consist of a written test on basic pharmacy, a test in the Korean language, and an interview. The preliminary examination should include suitable items that effectively evaluate international graduates. Graduates of international pharmacy schools who have an ability equivalent to graduates of Korean pharmacy schools should be eligible to write the Korean Licensing Examination.
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 | 0.057 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".