MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174874139 · doi:10.18433/j30601

Introduction to Pharmaceutical Calculations - Fourth edition, Judith A. Rees, Ian Smith and Jennie Watson

2015· article· en· W2174874139 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Wilson Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatsonFormularyPharmacyInclusion (mineral)Mathematics educationPsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsLibrary scienceMedicineSociologyArtificial intelligenceFamily medicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book by Rees, Smith and Watson is applicable to pharmacy students, pharmacy technician students, as well as instructors. The book is divided into 13 chapters and covers topics such as concentrations, dilutions and dosage calculation, that most pharmacy practitioners encounter. The authors have primarily used the concept of proportions to approach most of the mathematical problems covered in this book. The use of a consistent approach allows for continuity from one chapter to the next, and teaches students a single approach that enables solving most pharmacy-related mathematical problems. The drawback, however, is that this one single approach may not suit all readers and learning styles. The text is well laid out and easy to follow. Concepts are discussed thoroughly while some areas, e.g., density, specific gravity and significant figures, can benefit from more in depth discussions. The practice questions are relevant to most situations and are well-used to illustrate the concepts of interest. The number of examples and practice questions are sufficient. It is evident that the book is primarily intended for students in the UK since the British Pharmacopeia and British National Formulary are its main references. While readers outside of the UK will not have difficulty understanding the concepts, they will find some of the references not applicable. The authors included some discussion on infusion rates and concentrations. However, the book can benefit from inclusion of more in depth discussions and examples relevant to hospital practice (e.g., concentrations and the mixing of intravenous electrolyte solutions). The inclusion of access to online videos is a welcomed addition and can appeal to students with various learning styles. In conclusion, this is a useful text for students and instructors. The practice questions in this book are relevant to daily practice and can be used as a source of additional practice for students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.063

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207