Implementation and evaluation of a marketing for pharmacists elective course
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This manuscript evaluates the introduction and evaluation of a marketing for pharmacists course, an elective course offered to student pharmacists in the last year of the entry-to-practice program. A questionnaire, consisting of 24 items, centring on methods of delivery, course content, and outcomes was distributed to, and completed by, students on the final day of the course. There was a strong sense of satisfaction with taking the elective course, with most stating he/she would recommend taking the course to future students. More support was given to keeping the course heavily focused on a project-based assessment of knowledge and learning, as opposed to reducing the project-based assessment weighting and including a final examination. Overall there is robust support from those that have taken the course, and most find they will have a unique advantage in his/her career because of taking the course. There is also the added benefit of engaging pharmacy stakeholders, and in particular practitioners that work directly with student groups in creating a marketing plan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it