MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068188531 · doi:10.1177/1715163514546600

Self-denigration in pharmacy

2014· article· en· W2068188531 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacy and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-denigration in pharmacy: Actions that should be curtailed Good actions give strength to ourselves and inspire good action in others.-PlatoIn the last issue of the journal, we highlighted various words that pharmacists adopt or that are used by others to describe us in a denigrating way as professionals.These include the terms "minor" ailments, "nonmedical" prescribing, "retail" pharmacy, "customers" and so on. 1 We have pledged to avoid the use of these terms in this journal going forward.Just as we can carefully choose our words and their lexical semantics, we can also command our actions through our service to our patients and society.Actions help define us as professionals and set up how we are perceived by others.Our individual and collective actions as pharmacists can reflect a positive image or can belittle and demean our profession.Unfortunately, we sometimes choose actions that fall into the latter category.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.293 · 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