Bibliographic record
Abstract
include options to highlight "How will CSHP 2015 impact patient care?" through poster and short story submissions, as well as videos.Just in time for the 2013 Pharmacy Awareness Month, CSHP made an advocacy video on the value of hospital pharmacists accessible to its members for download from the CSHP website.Since 2007 CSHP has been partnering with the Editorial Board of the Hospital Pharmacy in Canada Report to measure progress with implementation of the CSHP 2015 initiative (www.lillyhospitalsurvey.ca).Just launched, the CSHP 2015 progress updates provide convenient dashboards to report and compare national, regional, and own-facility achievement of CSHP 2015 objectives(www.cshp.ca/programs/cshp2015/index_e.asp).Members may also wish to review the most recent Official Publications (the newly updated "Clinical Trials: Guidelines for Pharmacies in Healthcare Institutions" and "Documentation of Pharmacists' Activities in the Health Record: Guidelines"), as well as the latest online continuing education course "Minimizing the Risk of Contamination in the Oncology Pharmacy Setting".The foregoing are just some highlights of the ways in which CSHP supports hospital pharmacists.The Society will continue to develop strategic partnerships and ensure its involvement as a key stakeholder and advocate for pharmacy with governments, regulatory bodies, and other national, North American, and international professional associations.
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 | 0.021 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.011 |
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".