MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2083784089 · doi:10.1177/1715163513506840

Ontario Pharmaceutical Opinion Program

2013· article· en· W2083784089 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
B Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemunerationScope (computer science)PharmacistVariety (cybernetics)PharmacyMedicineScope of practiceFamily medicinePopulationBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthHealth careComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pharmacy in Canada is facing many challenges but also many new opportunities. With the expanding scope of practice for pharmacists, remuneration is available for a variety of cognitive services.1 With an aging Canadian population taking increasing amounts of medication, there is great potential for side effects and/or drug interactions. To remedy this, the Ontario MedsCheck program2 was launched as a 20- to 30-minute one-on-one meeting with a community pharmacist to review the medication regimen and look for any drug-related problems or areas for optimization. Following a medication review, the pharmacist may receive remuneration for providing clinical recommendations through the Pharmaceutical Opinion Program.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4570.068

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2013
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→