D’exécutant à expert du médicament : l’évolution de la Loi de pharmacie du Québec, 1870-1989
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’accroissement de la consommation médicamenteuse et le recours à une expertise pharmaceutique toujours plus savante placent les pharmaciens au coeur du processus de médicalisation du Québec aux XIXe et XXe siècles. À cet égard, la Loi de pharmacie du Québec atteste de l’importance croissant du rôle des pharmaciens comme professionnel de la santé. Cet article a pour objectif d’exposer l’exercice de la pharmacie à travers la Loi de la pharmacie du Québec de 1870 à 1989. Pour ce faire, nous analysons cinq dimensions qui définissent l’exercice de la pharmacie soit les titres professionnels, la formation académique, la corporation professionnelle, le contrôle de la vente de médicaments ainsi que les privilèges et les actes réservés des pharmaciens. Cette analyse révèle qu’au fil des amendements à la Loi de pharmacie, l’exercice de la pharmacie se complexifie par l’octroi de pouvoirs et de privilèges qui reconnaissent le jugement professionnel et le rôle thérapeutique des pharmaciens.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".