MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331212667 · doi:10.1177/1715163514562765

CPhA Advocacy

2014· article· fr· W2331212667 on OpenAlex
Jeff Morrison

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Research and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAssociation des pharmaciens du Canada
KeywordsPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past year was an exciting and productive one for the Canadian Pharmacists Association’s (CPhA) advocacy efforts. CPhA’s accomplishments include the following: Working closely with the Council of the Federation: In 2013, the Council of the Federation (now called “Canada’s Premiers”) asked that provincial and territorial officials look into ways in which pharmacists could be better used in a team-based environment. In early 2014, a CPhA-produced document that identified best practices in the delivery of 4 specific services by pharmacists was approved and shared with all jurisdictions. An initiative was also launched to identify innovative team-based models involving pharmacists (a report identifying these models is expected to be released by the end of 2014). Better promoting the profession of pharmacy: 2014 witnessed better coordination among national and provincial pharmacy associations in promoting the profession during Pharmacists Awareness Month in March. Among the many initiatives launched, CPhA produced a professional video explaining the expanded services that pharmacists now offer. Engaging with third-party payers: In 2014, CPhA strengthened its relationship with third-party payers by creating the Pharmacy Health Insurance Steering Coalition (PHISC), a group of senior representatives from pharmacy and the third-party payer community. Among CPhA’s other accomplishments was the creation of a Value for Services Toolkit that provides information supporting pharmacy’s case to include coverage of expanded pharmacy services in private plans, an initiative that will continue into 2015. Changing the federal regulation on retention of electronic prescriptions: Starting in late 2013, CPhA began lobbying Health Canada to reform the regulation in the Food and Drug Act requiring pharmacies to retain 2 years’ worth of paper prescriptions. CPhA’s recommendation was to allow for electronic retention of prescriptions, similar to what a number of provinces have already enacted. In July 2014, Health Canada confirmed that the federal government would now interpret the regulation to allow for electronic retention of prescriptions. Passage of Vanessa’s Law on drug safety: In November 2014, Royal Assent was given to Bill C-17, otherwise known as Vanessa’s Law. This legislation is intended to strengthen drug safety regulations by making it mandatory for health institutions to report adverse drug reactions, and it provides the federal government with additional powers to recall drug products deemed unsafe. CPhA appeared before both a House and Senate Committee to indicate support for this bill. Continuing to represent pharmacy before Parliament: CPhA appeared 6 times before Senate and House of Commons Committees, speaking on such issues as drug safety, e-cigarettes, drug shortages and scope of practice. Gearing up for the 2015 federal election: Over the past 2 years, CPhA has been working closely with the Health Action Lobby (HEAL), a coalition of 40 national health organizations, to develop a united platform in advance of the next federal election. This platform was finalized in fall 2014 and unveiled in December. It will be communicated to Canadians and political parties throughout 2015 in the lead-up to the next election. Building on these successes, 2015 promises to be a year of growth in CPhA’s advocacy efforts. With a new Board Advocacy Committee, a new Vice President and advocacy department, and a renewed resolve on the part of the Board to strengthen CPhA’s advocacy efforts, CPhA will be better positioned to influence the issues that impact both pharmacy and the broader health system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.315 · 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