MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2030549515 · doi:10.3821/145.2.cpj55

Changes in the Pharmacy Business Landscape: Katz Group and Target

2012· article· en· W2030549515 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kathie Lynas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyGroup (periodic table)MedicineGeographyFamily medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are changes on the horizon in the business side of pharmacy in Canada and they will mean a larger footprint for US pharmacy interests in this country. On January 30, 2012, Edmonton-based Katz Group of Canada announced plans to sell its interest in 850 Canadian independent stores — mainly operating under the I.D.A. and Guardian banners — to California-based health care giant McKesson Corp. McKesson is also buying Katz Group's franchise business, which serves 160 Medicine Shoppe outlets across Canada. While announcing plans to put more energy into strengthening its 400 Rexall-brand pharmacies (Rexall and Pharma Plus outlets), Katz Group revealed it has acquired the Dell Pharmacies network. Dell has 18 stores in southern Ontario and all are to be integrated into the Rexall network. At the same time, US discount retailer Target has announced that it is looking for independent pharmacists to own and operate franchises in its new Canadian stores. Beginning next year, Target will take over 189 former Zellers locations in this country — in its first move outside the US market. The retailer says it plans to begin an active search for pharmacist franchise-owners in March.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.006
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→