Clinical Pharmacy Services in the Management of Minor Ailment: a bibliometric review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minor ailments are acute, low-severity conditions of short duration that typically resolve without complications. These conditions can be managed using medications and other therapeutic products that are available without a prescription. Countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have made notable advancements in the provision of Clinical Pharmacy Services (CPS) for the management of these conditions, supported by government policies, pharmacist remuneration, and additional professional training. Despite the growing body of literature documenting these developments in specific countries, there remains limited knowledge about global research output on this topic. Addressing this gap is essential for monitoring the evolution of knowledge in the field. In this context, bibliometric analysis serves as a vital tool for evaluating and interpreting scientific output, identifying emerging trends and research gaps, and guiding future investigations. This study, therefore, aims to map and analyze the global scientific literature on CPS in the management of minor ailments.
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 | 0.074 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.054 | 0.050 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.007 |
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".