Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacists Journal with a mission "to enhance patient care through advancement of pharmacy practice, with education, peer-reviewed research, and advocacy."With this issue we take another step toward fulfilling our Editorial Board's vision for this publication with the inclusion of our first-ever supplement on hypertension.This special CPJ supplement is the result of months of planning and development aimed at providing pharmacists with the practical information they need to enhance the care of hypertensive patients.We were fortunate to secure the participation of researchers, clinical experts, and opinion leaders not only from pharmacy but also medicine, nursing, and the volunteer sector -all enthusiastic supporters of expanded roles for pharmacists.Pharmacists must recognize the significance of this support.With governments across Canada finally starting to appreciate the value of pharmacist contributions to primary health care, the creation of the first ever nationally recognized, peer-reviewed practice guidelines specifically for pharmacists seems very timely.The encouragement from other professions for pharmacists to participate in a multidisciplinary approach to hypertension management is invaluable and second in importance only to our patients' need to have pharmacists fully engaged and involved in their care.Our hope is that these guidelines and other content in this supplement will facilitate the entry of average community pharmacists into the primary health care arena.We welcome your comments and suggestions.We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Polly Thompson, former Editor of CPJ, for turning the concept of a "journal as a communications vehicle for practice change."(Tsuyuki and Schindel) into reality.Polly was instrumental in the relaunch of CPJ in 2005 and we wish her all the best as she moves on to other projects.
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 | 0.038 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.008 |
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".