Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pharmacists generally enjoy a high ranking when members of the general public are asked to rate the most trusted professions. While it is a good thing that the pharmacy profession appears to be trustworthy, it is not clear whether the public fully appreciates what pharmacists can do. Methods: A telephone survey in the province of Saskatchewan was conducted between February 25 and March 2, 2010. The questionnaire consisted of 43 items. Results: A total of 1283 people were contacted; 403 (31.4%) agreed to participate. A majority of respondents were female (253, 62.8%). Two-thirds (262, 65%) felt they were a “customer” when visiting a pharmacy; only 14.9% (60) felt they were a “patient.” There was some limited support for an expanded role for pharmacists. Conclusions: Gender appears to play a role in public perceptions of pharmacists; women tended to have a more favourable view of the profession than men. Lower education and income level were associated with a more positive view of pharmacists. This study adds to our understanding of the public perceptions of pharmacists and the potential for increased scope of practice. Respondents in this study, as in similar studies, generally had a positive view of the pharmacy profession, but there is still some variation, perhaps showing that an inconsistent message is being communicated to the general public about the role of pharmacists.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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 it