Pompes automatisées pour préparations pharmaceutiques : comparaison entre les pompes Baxa et Pharm-Assist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Nous comparons deux modeles de pompes peristaltiques pour preparations steriles et non steriles en pharmacie: Pharm-Assist et Baxa. La pompe Pharm-Assist affiche plus d’information que la pompe Baxa et requiert quelques touches de moins lors des manoeuvres. Sa memoire est alphanumerique comparativement a une memoire numerique pour la pompe Baxa. La Baxa est structurellement plus solide, n’a pas eu de probleme d’ecoulement, se calibre des le premier essai et peut fonctionner tres rapidement. Ses options sont plus nombreuses. Les deux pompes coutent entre 2 000 et 3 000 dollars. Bien qu’il n’y ait que peu de differences, le departement de pharmacie de l’Hopital Sainte-Justine a choisi la pompe Pharm-Assist pour ses preparations steriles. Abstract Two models of peristaltic pump for sterile and nonsterile preparations are compared in this article: Pharm-Assist and Baxa. The Pharm-Assist pump displays more information than the Baxa pump and requires less keystrokes to operate. Pharm-Assist pump has an alphanumeric memory compared to a numeric memory for Baxa. Baxa pump has a stronger structure, has no leaking problems, calibrates on the first try and can run very fast. There are more options available on the Baxapump. Both pumps cost between 2 000 and 3 000 dollars. While there is only a few differences, the pharmacy department of Sainte-Justine Hospital has chosen the Pharm-Assist pump for its sterile preparations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".