MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046978715 · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.031

Pharmacy practice research – A call to action

2020· article· en· W3046978715 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria García‐Cárdenas, Charlotte Rossing, Fernando Fernández-Llimós, Martin Schulz, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Olivier Bugnon, Fernanda S. Tonin, Shalom I. Benrimoj

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacy practicePharmacyPharmaconomistClinical pharmacyHealth careMedicineCall to actionNursingPsychological interventionMedical educationBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.526
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.502
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5260.502
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.016
Bibliometrics0.0180.012
Science and technology studies0.0430.220
Scholarly communication0.0830.125
Open science0.0290.084
Research integrity0.3200.241
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.009

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 head0.877
GPT teacher head0.707
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Social and Administrative PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207