MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396913346 · doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxae138

Queue the quarter life crisis: The value of mentorship for early career pharmacists

2024· article· en· W4396913346 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pam M Ku, Kelli Keats

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipPharmacyQuarter (Canadian coin)Value (mathematics)MedicineFamily medicineMedical educationHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Is this really all there is?” I found myself asking. I had survived my first few years of practice as a clinical pharmacy specialist. The years had flown by, filled with plenty of accomplishments worthy of celebration: board certification, positive feedback from my manager in my yearly evaluation, learners I precepted matching into their dream residency programs. Proud as I was of my achievements, I was feeling tired from the daily grind and worried that I had already reached my peak. Such a sentiment is not unique. There is a concerning trend of shortened career span with clinical pharmacists leaving direct patient care in favor of other career options.1 The early attrition of clinical pharmacists from bedside practice just years after they take the Oath of a Pharmacist poses an urgent threat to the profession in the form of brain drain: We are missing out on diverse minds and talents both at the bedside and as the educational and mentoring workforce for the next generation of pharmacists. After such a highly structured training pathway, graduation can leave newly minted clinical pharmacists abruptly unmoored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0180.016
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0090.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Health-System PharmacySame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207