Bibliographic record
Abstract
may not. The system is not designed to provide feedback on an individual’s learning ability and progress or to identify those that are struggling. As pharmacy organizations in Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand move ahead with formal systems to foster continuing professional development, tension within the United States is building. US pharmacy is clearly at a potential turning point, faced with some important decisions. In addition, our energies are not well targeted. If CPD is the bigger picture, our current efforts address only one “piece of the puzzle”. In essence, we assume that pharmacists are practicing CPD. Then, most of our energy goes into creating continuing education (CE) programs, with less energy dedicated to preparing pharmacists to self assess, find and select appropriate learning activities, to evaluate the effectiveness of their learning, and to reflect on its impact on their practice. The International Pharmaceutical Federation has defined Continuing Professional Development, or CPD, as “the responsibility of individual pharmacists for systematic maintenance, development and broadening of knowledge, skills and attitudes, to ensure continuing competence as a professional, throughout their careers.” To implement CPD, a pharmacist must be committed to continually cycling through the steps of self-appraisal, planning, action, and evaluation. CPD requires systematic, ongoing, and self-directed learning. Up to this point, most would agree. The goals and process of CPD appear well grounded and the current system has several shortcomings. The disagreement and opposition occurs when we try to suggest change. To our benefit, several pharmacy organizations from other countries have already tried to add a layer of accountability and support to CPD’s practice in their respective jurisdictions. However, these systems are in their infancy. From a theoretical perspective, it is hard to disagree with the goals or process of CPD. The need to ensure continued competence is an indisputable professional responsibility. The ongoing, cyclical process of reflecting, planning, implementing and evaluating learning has been well discussed within educational circles. Better learning occurs when this cycle is used. In this issue of the Journal, we learn about Ontario’s first 5 years of experience with a Quality Assurance and Peer Review Program. In their system, in lieu of submitting CE credits, all pharmacists are required to maintain a learning portfolio, which documents their selfidentified learning needs, activities, and outcomes. This portfolio must be submitted to their regulatory authority (the Ontario College of Pharmacists) upon request. In addition, randomly selected pharmacists complete a Self-Assessment Survey. This allows the Ontario College of Pharmacists to better understand pharmacists’ learning needs and activities across the province. Randomly selected pharmacists also complete a three-part practice review process where feedback is provided on their knowledge and skills. For some, remediation via peer assistance may be required. Unfortunately, when it comes to facilitating CPD, most would agree that the continuing education system in the United States falls short in two areas: accountability and support. Each individual pharmacist is responsible for understanding and engaging in the CPD process. Each pharmacist may accept this responsibility or they may not. The system is not designed to hold them accountable for engaging in CPD. If a pharmacist does accept the responsibility of CPD, they may do well in implementing the process or they
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 | 0.046 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
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".