Practical Study for Seminar Program Certified by Japanese Society of Hospital Pharmacists for Clinical Psychiatric Pharmacists Organized by Chiba Society of Hospital Pharmacists, and Investigation of Participants' Background and Issues for Taking Board Certified Psychiatric Pharmacy Specialists and Board Certified Pharmacists in Psychiatric Pharmacy Certifications Using Questionnaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, certification systems for Board-Certified Psychiatric Pharmacy Specialists (BCPPS) and Board-Certified Pharmacists in Psychiatric Pharmacy (BCPPP) were established by the Japanese Society of Hospital Pharmacists (JSHP) in 2008, to meet the increasing needs for specialists in psychiatric pharmacy. However, there was no report on the background and opinion of pharmacists who have intention to take the BCPPS or BCPPP and/or seminar programs for BCPPS or BCPPP. The Chiba Society of Hospital Pharmacists has started to provide a seminar program certified by the JSHP to study psychiatry for pharmacists and also investigated the participants' background, demand for the program, and issues in taking the BCPPS or BCPPP using questionnaires. We found that many participants wanted lectures to obtain information on issues they face in routine work as well as for certification testing. For many participants, satisfying the requirements for applying for the BCPPS or BCPPP was one of the most important issues in receiving the qualifications. We found that over 40% of participants working at community pharmacies intended to take the BCPPS or BCPPP, although working experience at a community pharmacy does not entitle them to apply for the BCPPS or BCPPP. The intention of community pharmacists indicates that discussion of the requirements for BCPPS or BCPPP certification systems is necessary to improve psychiatric community care. We will plan a practical seminar program with feedback from this investigation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".