Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Pharmacy Advisory Committee of B.C. Health Services has developed a Pharmacy Vendor Quality Management Program. This program employs a rating scale to measure quality of delivery service, quality of invoicing service and quality of customer service. Ten elements, each rated on a four-point scale, are included in the rating system. Hospitals in each of six regions of B.C. collect data using the system. The ratings are averaged, weighted and used to make decisions regarding vendor contracts, if all other factors are equal. Vendor bids are increased by up to 10%, inversely reflecting their vendor quality rating. We have found this system to be an unbiased objective means to quantify the performance of vendors and integrate service quality into the contracting process. RESUME Le Conseil consultatif de pharmacie des Services de sante de la Colombie-Britannique a elabore un programme de gestion de la qualite des fournisseurs pharmaceutiques. Ce programme utilise une echelle de notation pour mesurer la qualite des services de livraison, de facturation et aupres de la clientele, de ces fournisseurs. Le programme permet d'evaluer dix elements sur une echelle de quatre. Les hopitaux de chacune des six regions brianno-colombiennes recueillent les donnees issues du programme. On calcule ensuite une moyenne des cotes obtenues et on les pondere. Les cotes resultantes servent a choisir un fournisseur parmi plusieurs, lorsque les autres facteurs de selection son egaux. Les soumissions des fournisseurs ont augmente jusqu'a 10 %, refletant de facon inversement proportionnelle la cote qualitative de ces fournisseurs. Ce systeme s'est avere un moyen objectif de quantifier le rendement des fournisseurs et d'integrer la qualite du service dans l'attribution des contrats.
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 | 0.105 | 0.295 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".