MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7081062277 · doi:10.5683/sp3/tawtov

Pharmacy Program in a BC First Nation: Perspectives of Patients, Clinicians, and Student Learners in a Rural and Remote Indigenous Context

2025· dataset· en· W7081062277 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPharmacyContext (archaeology)Pharmacy practicePharmacistHealth careFocus groupCommunity pharmacyEconomic shortageAction research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rural and remote Indigenous communities experience challenges with safe medication use, often exacerbated by limited transportation, shortages of healthcare providers, and gaps in culturally safe, patient-centered care. The BC First Nation community has identified a clear need and priority to action safe medication practices by improving access to clinical pharmacy services integrated with local traditional community knowledge systems. This Summer Student Research Project aims to build, implement, and evaluate a new pharmacy program integrated with the home and community care of the local health centre of the BC First Nation. Services include medication management appointments, medication education, and diabetes and hypertension monitoring with a pharmacist and pharmacy student learners. The program is built on a phrase from the local BC First Nation, with a focus on relationships and a holistic understanding of both western and traditional medicines. The purpose of the evaluation was to examine patient and clinician perspectives on the program, and student learning experiences.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealis→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→