MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124501395 · doi:10.5688/ajpe8311

Addressing the Challenges of Precepting Students Enrolled in Remote Research Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences

2021· letter· en· W3124501395 on OpenAlexafffund
Anisha Hundal, Taylor L. Watterson, Kaleen N. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and SafetyUniversity of TorontoAlaska Sustainable Salmon FundNutrition and Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network, University of California, San FranciscoCIHR Skin Research Training CentreUniversity Libraries, Northern Illinois University
KeywordsPharmacy practicePharmacyMedical educationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of restrictions imposed by COVID-19, many researchers have responded to the call for remote, advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs) that do not involve direct patient care. The influx of materials on online pedagogy may be difficult for new preceptors to digest while familiarizing themselves with the APPE program. To complement the available guidance on remote learning for new preceptors, we describe our experiences with implementing a remote, research-focused APPE during COVID-19. Common challenges are discussed and potential solutions that may help new preceptors anticipate and overcome barriers to achieving the educational outcomes of research-focused APPE are proposed.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0150.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0120.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.468
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.146 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical EducationSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207