Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the changes in the pharmacy curriculum from a 4 year program to a 6 year program in 2009, a new subject called Pharmacy Practice Experience (PPE) has been launched into the curriculum. The purpose of introducing this subject is to increase the competency of new pharmacy graduates in providing quality healthcare to the community. This study has been done, via comparison among different pharmacy schools in Canada and Korea, to ensure that the competency of future Korean pharmacists can be increased with the introduction of this subject. In general, the Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experience (IPPE) in Korea consists of 60 hours while Canada consists of 320 hours (minimum). Furthermore, the Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience (APPE) required in Korea is 1340 hours while Canada requires minimum of 960 hours. Specifically, comparing the Korean PPE curriculum to the PPE curriculums of University of Toronto (UT) and University of Waterloo (UW), UT and UW required a minimum of 75% and 89% direct clinical patient care experience respectively, either in hospital or community setting, compared to 45% in Korea; the remaining percentage in any of the universities can be fulfilled by taking other electives that may not require direct patient care experience. Observing these differences, it seems clear that the current PPE experience in Canada takes more of a patient focused approach than in Korea. Thus, with the recent movement in the Korean pharmacy community towards a more patient focused approach rather than a product focused approach, it would be beneficial to learn the differences between the PPE curriculums in Korea and Canada and apply any new understandings to the relatively newly introduced PPE program in Korea to further enhance the value of the new curriculum in helping to deliver quality patient care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.015 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".