Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadians through patientcentred care”.CSHP continues to work as an active partner with several other pharmacy organizations in implementing this vision for our profession. For example, this fall CSHP will be participating in the Pharmacy Practice Model Initiative of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, helping to cast a new vision specifically for hospital pharmacy practice. It is also worth noting that “vision” can also function as a verb. Some sources define the verb “vision” as “to dream.” This relationship between dreaming and visioning was captured by Dr Charles D Hepler in the 2010 H A K Whitney Award address (given during the ASHP Summer Meeting and Exhibition in June 2010; see Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010;67[16]: 1319–1325), in which he stated, “The dream of pharmacy as a clinical profession has been deferred too long” and “There will never be a better time for us to make our dream deferred into a vision achieved.” As a profession, we have made incredible progress over the past few decades, with the rise of clinical pharmacy and pharmaceutical care. Still, admittedly, there is much work to be done. Pharmacists are not providing pharmaceutical care to every patient in our nation’s hospitals, and there are patients for whom the medication-use system is neither safe nor effective. My personal challenge to you is to consider “vision” as both a noun and a verb in your own practice area as you dream about new services and strive toward the targets in CSHP 2015.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".