Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been written about the scope of pharmacy practice in Canada over the past decade. The benefits of pharmacists to the primary care team, in terms of both cost and patient health, are well documented, as are the reasons why community pharmacists have yet to widely adopt this new role.1-3 Barriers commonly reported by pharmacists generally involve issues of time, money, training and lack of support from patients and other health care professionals.4-6 Despite these self-perceived barriers, expectations of pharmacists continue to increase, as do support and funding, particularly in Alberta. Alberta, a worldwide leader in pharmacy practice, has given pharmacists one of the largest scopes of practice and amount of financial support in the world. Despite this, uptake of pharmacy services remains largely superficial. Pharmacists in Alberta are able to prescribe and adapt medications, administer medications by injection and develop patient care plans, but they average fewer than 2 of these services per pharmacy per day.7-9 The continued support for pharmacy services in Alberta brings into question whether the aforementioned barriers are the only issues holding back pharmacists. Indeed, evidence suggests that removing self-reported barriers is not sufficient to promote practice change.5 Rosenthal et al.10 provided a unique explanation of this poor uptake of clinical services. These authors hypothesized that pharmacists themselves are holding back practice change by undervaluing their own training and being unable to apply their knowledge in the novel ways expected from a primary care clinician. I believe that the ideas suggested by Rosenthal et al. are likely a major contributor to the lack of uptake of practice change, but I also believe that the issue comes back to a more basic problem: Many pharmacists do not perceive the necessity of change.
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 | 0.008 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".