Pharmacy Preceptor Judgments of Student Performance and Behavior During Experiential Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To report the findings of how Canadian preceptors perceive and subsequently evaluate diverse levels of trainees during pharmacy clerkships. Methods. Using modified Delphi technique, 17 Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) preceptors from across Canada categorized 16 student narrative descriptions pertaining to their perception of described student performance: exceeds, meets, or falls below their expectations. Results. Twelve (75%) student narratives profiles were categorized unanimously in the final round, six of which were below expectations. Out of 117 ratings of below expectations by responding preceptors, the majority (115, 98%) of post-baccalaureate PharmD students described would fail. Conversely, if the same narrative instead profiled a resident or an entry-to-practice PharmD student, rotation failure decreased to 95 (81%) and 89 (76%), respectively. Conclusion. Pharmacy preceptors do not uniformly judge the same described student performance and inconsistently apply failing rotation grades when they do agree that performance falls below expectations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".