Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missed opportunityThe analysis by Rosenthal et al. of the profession's response to Bill 16 in Ontario should be required reading in pharmacy curricula across the country.After all, students should know something about the culture of their chosen profession.For all the talk of moving forward, of expanded services and a new model of practice, it is all just that: talk.The majority of pharmacists do not have the confi dence or the commitment to embrace the role of "carers of patients."When faced with a crisis that threatens the bottom line, but with an opportunity to reshape the raison d'être of the profession, many pharmacists instead clung helplessly to the past, to that safety blanket we call dispensing.Perhaps it is fear of the unknown that pushes pharmacists and pharmacy organizations to so steadfastly embrace the status quo.Perhaps it is a misplaced sense of security.Many in the profession love to point to the fact that year after year, pharmacists rank near or at the top of the Ipsos Reid poll of most trusted profession (see page 55).Would we stand so tall in the public's eyes, I wonder, if they ever realized that the most trusted profession is more concerned with "pharmacist," "pharmacy" and "professional allowances" than it is with "patient care"?Public perception can change quickly; our profession apparently cannot.
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 | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.429 | 0.186 |
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".