Exploring Hidden Messages About Pharmacist Roles in Student-Designed Orientation T-Shirts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To develop an understanding of how images and symbols on student-designed orientation t-shirts represent students’ beliefs about pharmacists’ roles in practice. Methods. An exploratory qualitative study underpinned by perspectives on hidden curriculum and discursive practices was conducted at one Canadian pharmacy school. First year students wrote responses to prompts about the t-shirts at the start and end of the school year. Concurrently, semi-structured interviews and focus groups were held with faculty, staff, and 2nd-4th year students. Six t-shirts from 2014-2019 were used for discussion. Data were independently coded by the two authors and themes were developed. Results. Students and faculty had mostly similar thoughts about the practice of giving orientation t-shirts and the messages on them. Many pointed to the drug-related aspects of pharmacists’ roles and did not question this representation until explicitly prompted. Relatedly, most participants did not suggest that the t-shirts should emphasize the pharmacist-patient relationship and care provision. And while there were mixed thoughts about the business logo on the t-shirts, participants were often unperturbed by sponsorship or its potential effects on students. Conclusion. This study showed that despite national educational outcomes advocating the care provider role, these representations of pharmacy and pharmacists’ roles still focus on drug expertise and drug provision. By revealing thoughts about the t-shirt images, the study highlighted how, despite explicit teaching of pharmacists’ roles and the expanding scope of pharmacy, discursive practices in pharmacy education exist and form part of the hidden curriculum.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".