Bibliographic record
Abstract
You may not have thought much about it yet, but as a “leapling”1 I can tell you that 2012 is definitely a Leap Year. Yes, this is one of those years with an extra day on the calendar and a few superstitions attached. Some groups are encouraging people to take a risk to change their community for the better this year.2 Others are hoping the extra day will bring a measure of good fortune, and I'm optimistic that this will be the case for pharmacy practice. Two of this issue's articles (see pages 17 and 30) highlight some very positive progress made recently in the expansion of Canadian pharmacists' scopes of practice. While there's still work to be done to obtain enabling legislation all across the country and to secure appropriate reimbursement for prescribing and medication management activities in most jurisdictions,3 there seems to be some consistent and forward momentum at the moment. I'm encouraged by the comments of some pharmacists from Alberta who repeatedly mentioned the ability to better look after their patients as being “the best part of having additional prescribing authorization.”4 These pharmacists unquestionably see themselves as patient care practitioners. But while I expected some turf protection and skepticism from other health professionals when changes like these are realized, it is a bit disheartening to hear that other pharmacists can be among the barriers to implementation of these expanded practice skills.4 A somewhat different position is put forward in another article (see page 35), where the authors analyze responses to the 2010 Bill 16 professional allowance crisis in Ontario and ask whether patient care figured prominently enough in the discussion. As with many things, it seems we take 2 steps forward and 1 back. I encourage you to read these articles, respond with your thoughts and experiences and maybe do what you can this year to use that extra day for the sake of your patients, while being appropriately reimbursed for your time and knowledge.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
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".