MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079592044 · doi:10.1080/15602210600911916

Promotion and tenure: Clinical faculty at schools of pharmacy in Canada

2006· article· en· W2079592044 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacy Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsPromotion (chess)PharmacyPaceMedical educationPharmacy practiceClinical pharmacyPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of an evolution in roles and responsibilities of pharmacists, pharmacy education in North America has become more clinical in nature. In order to meet teaching and research requirements, Canadian pharmacy schools are hiring non-traditional faculty members who possess advanced clinical degrees and training rather than traditional academic qualifications. Policies with respect to tenure and promotion have not kept pace with these changes in hiring practices. Research was undertaken to examine the application of tenure and promotion policies and guidelines to clinical pharmacy faculty members across Canada. Document review was complemented by key informant interviews. A series of themes emerged indicating areas of concern regarding application of traditional “arts and science ” tenuring/promotion policies for clinical pharmacy faculty members. Based on these themes, a model for development of guidelines to acknowledge the value and importance of creative scholarly activity within pharmacy (“the 5 C’s”) is proposed and discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.387 · 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