Le « MOT » du département de pharmacie du Centre universitaire de santé McGill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Objectif : L’objectif de cet article est de decrire le modele, developpe par des membres du departement de pharmacie du Centre universitaire de sante McGill (CUSM), qui analyse les differentes etapes liees aux travaux realises dans le cadre de leur collaboration au comite de pharmacologie. Mise en contexte : Il y a quelques annees, le CUSM a procede a une revision du formulaire pharmacotherapeutique et du fonctionnement du comite de pharmacologie. Pour permettre une collaboration optimale des differents cliniciens, un examen approfondi des activites entourant la production des differents travaux soumis au comite de pharmacologie a ete entrepris. L’analyse de tout le processus visait une approche concertee de la gestion du medicament pour assurer un modele systematique de prises de decisions basees sur des donnees probantes. Une designer pedagogique a aide l’equipe du CUSM a modeliser les elements entourant les etapes des differents mandats a realiser pour appuyer le comite. Conclusion : Une modelisation par objet type (MOT) a permis d’identifier les composantes des differents travaux du comite de pharmacologie ainsi que leurs liens et de mieux comprendre les responsabilites et la contribution de chacun, ce qui facilitera les prises de decisions eclairees par des donnees probantes. Cette cartographie est devenue un outil de reference lors de conferences et est utilise a des fins educatives pour les differents cliniciens. Elle explique efficacement et de maniere exhaustive le fonctionnement de l’equipe responsable, dont le role consiste a offrir le soutien necessaire au comite de pharmacologie dans ses activites. Abstract Objective : The purpose of this article is to describe the model analyzing the different steps related to projects developed in collaboration with the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, a model developed by members of the pharmacy department of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). Context : A few years ago, the MUHC proceeded to a revision of the drug formulary and of the operation of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. To allow optimal collaboration of the different clinicians, a thorough evaluation was undertaken of all activities involved in the development of various projects submitted to the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. The analysis of the entire process was aimed at a concerted approach to medication management to ensure a systematic model for evidence-based decision making. A designer pedagogy helped the MUHC team in modeling the elements involved in the stages of carrying out the various mandates. Conclusion : The modeling by object type (MOT) approach allowed the identification of components of various projects of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, including their various connections. As well, the approach provided a better understanding of the responsibilities and contributions of each, all of which facilitated evidence-based decision making. Such concept mapping has become a reference tool used by clinicians for educational purposes at conferences. Concept mapping effectively and indeed exhaustively explains the functioning of an accountable team, which has the role of providing the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee with the support it needs in carrying out its activities.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".