MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806543426 · doi:10.5688/ajpe6804

Curricular Reform in Pharmacy Education Through the Lens of the Flexner Report of 1910

2018· article· en· W2806543426 on OpenAlex
Ryan L. Crass, Frank Romanelli

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyAccreditationThe RenaissanceDiversity (politics)Pharmacy educationMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicinePharmacy practiceFamily medicineHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abraham Flexner's 1910 report on medical education in the United States (US) and Canada propelled medical training forward into a contemporary renaissance. The report heralded many seismic changes that still resonate within medical and health professions education throughout the US. Today several factors are accelerating curricular reform within pharmacy education, including but not limited to accreditation standards, technologic advances, and student diversity. Despite the fact that Flexner's report is now over a century old, many of his observations and recommendations regarding education are as pertinent and timely today as they were in 1910. This commentary will discuss and reflect upon curricular reform in pharmacy education as it contrasts with some of the observations, findings, and recommendations of Flexner's 1910 report.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.414 · 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