Doctor of Pharmacy in Jordan: Students' Career Choices, Perceptions and Expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore Jordanian Pharm.D students' career choices, perceptions and expectations.Methods: This observational study was conducted during June 2013 at the University of Jordan. A total of 192 undergraduate Pharm.D students were invited to complete a questionnaire prepared and validated by the research team. The questionnaire investigated student’s demographics, the reasons behind choosing to study Pharm.D, satisfaction with the Pharm.D course, student’s future plans following graduation, and student’s perceptions about the Pharm.D specialty. Data collected were encoded and analyzed by SPSS database for Windows version17.Results:The majority (93%) of respondents was females,aspired to work as hospital clinical pharmacists (83%) and many (68%) believed that Pharm.D graduates are well respected by the general public. Results indicated that students are unaware of the current Pharm.D salaries and have higher expectations than what is being currently offered in the country.Conclusions:A generation of Pharm.D students from Jordan reported a future aspiration to work as hospital clinical pharmacists. Students have unrealistic salary expectations compared with the current salaries offered in Jordan. ‘Awareness workshops’ targeting students’ knowledge about the Pharm.D degree is required.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".