Advocacy in pharmacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacists are moving from traditional and technical dispensing roles to professional and clinical patient-centred services. They have shown that these new professional services have an essential and positive effect on patient outcomes. However, we must advocate for and promote these new services to 4 key groups—pharmacists, other health care professionals, patients and the community—or what is the point? This advocacy must begin at the grassroots, with the individual pharmacist, rather than relying solely on our professional organizations. It begins with the pharmacist eliminating the mystery of “behind the counter.” Both verbal patient interaction tips and nonverbal strategic communication tools can be developed and used to aid in this venture. We invite all pharmacists across Canada to take ownership of their evolving profession and to share ideas and collaborate with their colleagues. ■
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 | 0.030 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".