Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specialization in pharmacy has been a topic of interest for Canadian thought-leaders within the profession since the mid-1980s. Over the years, a number of initiatives have taken place to explore and advance this concept, such as the formation of the now-defunct Canadian Board of Specialties in Pharmacy, the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada’s Committee on Specialty Certification, the Task Group on Specialization in Canada and the Quebec initiative for the formal recognition of pharmacy specialties. With the expansion of pharmacists’ scopes of practice in Canada and the increased momentum of pharmacist specialization south of the border, the subject has gained renewed interest among hospital and community pharmacy practitioners and employers. The Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS) was established in the United States in 1973 and provides certification to pharmacists in areas such as pharmacotherapy, ambulatory care, nuclear, nutrition and psychiatric pharmacy. Until recently, the number of pharmacists obtaining certification through BPS was quite limited: by 2014, BPS had certified only 8% (21,906/290,780) of the country’s pharmacists (BPS Executive Director William Ellis, personal communication, Dec. 9, 2014). This number is increasing rapidly, however, and the organization expects to provide 25% (81,950/est. 327,800) of US pharmacists with specialty certification by 2020.1-3 Many international pharmacists are also now obtaining specialty certification through BPS as well as the Commission for Certification in Geriatric Pharmacy (CCGP), whether or not they receive official recognition for this certification in their home countries. The Blueprint for Pharmacy initiative, led by the Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA), has incorporated pharmacist specialization with its priority of education and continuing professional development since the Blueprint’s Vision for Pharmacy document was published in 2008. The most recent Blueprint undertaking around specialization involved contracting Intergage Consulting Group Inc. through a Request for Proposals process in 2014 to conduct a needs assessment of pharmacist specialization in Canada. The research included a literature and high-level jurisdictional review, interview consultations with key stakeholders, a national survey of pharmacists and pharmacist employers, and 2 roundtable consultations with thought-leaders and stakeholders. The purpose of the research was to obtain a current profile of the level of need, demand and feasibility of introducing a formal specialty certification and/or recognition process to Canada. The final report can be accessed at www.blueprintforpharmacy.ca.4
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.005 |
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".