MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612372381 · doi:10.1177/0897190017708074

Natural Health Products and Community Pharmacy—Remove the Mysticism Not the Product

2017· review· en· W2612372381 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy Practice · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMysticismPharmacyNatural (archaeology)ContemptCommunity pharmacyAlternative medicineCommunity practicePharmacy practiceProduct (mathematics)Health careTraditional medicineFamily medicineLawPsychologySocial psychologyHistoryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The allure of natural products has captivated humans for centuries. Although they can be compatible with evidence-based care, attitudes surrounding natural products can seem almost mystical and may even be accompanied by contempt toward Western medicine. Considering the high volumes of natural products sold in community pharmacies, pharmacists can inject balanced information to minimize the mysticism and help patients make informed decisions. The aim of this article is to argue for standardized guidelines pertaining to the management of natural products in community pharmacy practice.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.443
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.128 · 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