Evaluation of a pharmacy emergency response conference workshop
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The importance of pharmacists' involvement in disasters is becoming increasingly recognised in the literature. The aim of this project was to determine the effectiveness of a disaster workshop in improving pharmacy staff’s perceived capabilities to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. Methods: A disaster workshop was provided at a pharmacy conference. The workshop incorporated an evolving emergency scenario in which participants worked through activities pertaining to the prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery cycles. The attendees were invited to complete a previously validated pre-post survey assessing their perceptions of their skills and capabilities in the components of disaster management. Results: The pre-post survey was completed by 31 attendees. After the workshop, participants' perceptions of their ability to prevent, respond to, and recover from a disaster significantly improved (p=0.004, 0.013, and 0.013, respectively). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that a conference disaster workshop can improve the understanding and perceived disaster capabilities of health-system pharmacy personnel.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 it