Bibliographic record
Abstract
CSHP is visionary in planning its future and that of hospital pharmacy practice. Two CSHP representatives participated in the Pharmacy Practice Model Initiative (PPMI) Summit jointly sponsored by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) and the ASHP Foundation in late 2010 (www.ashp.org/PPMI). The goal of this initiative is to significantly advance the health and well-being of patients in hospitals and health systems by developing and disseminating optimal pharmacy practice models that are based on the effective use of pharmacists as direct patient care providers. Over 100 invited voting participants reached consensus on more than 160 recommendations affirming the need to move pharmacists closer to patients, to take responsibility for safe use of medications, to ensure a well-developed technician workforce, to widely adopt technology, and to value other stakeholders. The Summit proceedings and briefing papers will be published in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy in spring 2011. Last summer CSHP took the next step toward its strategic plan, Vision 2014, by holding a facilitated session with its Council, Branch presidents, and staff members. The findings of a CSHP member survey and an environmental scan were used in revising the Society’s mission, vision, and values and in setting strategic directions to take up the following challenges: develop a highly focused and manageable program and service plan, acquire the needed revenues, rejuvenate the volunteer base, recruit and engage members, and decide on the extent of CSHP’s voice and profile. CSHP Council will approve the 2011–2014 strategic plan at its midterm meeting in March 2011.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.271 | 0.105 |
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".