Prescribing Aid Evaluation PA – 01 Title: Oral Acid Suppression – Comparison Chart Organization: RxFiles (Saskatchewan) Summary Descriptive Information Category: Drug/Disease Reference Length: 4 pages Branding: Yes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug information chart relating a variety of agent-specific information on all available acidsuppressing therapies. Evaluation Information Readability Evaluation/Commentary: Poor readability due to densely packed text and use of small text size. Inconsistent use of bullet points and indentation makes material difficult to follow. Colour and highlighting used to differentiate certain materials within the chart. Decision Support Evaluation/Commentary: Excellent decision support contained within the chart including dosing of all agents, pertinent side effects, drug interactions, etc. Chart is fully referenced and contains a date and website information for retrieval. Impact Evaluation/Commentary: The chart has no specifically identifiable behavior target, it is designed to provide as large amount of information on a group of products in one page. Strengths Evaluation/Commentary: The chart provides a complete reference source for comparative drug information between all therapeutic options for the management of acid related disorders. It combines information from numerous sources into one concise document. The comparative pricing and coverage information is a key aspect of the chart. Weaknesses Evaluation/Commentary: Although the chart information is thorough, the information is densely packed within the page having a negative impact on readability. The common use of symbols within the chart requires the reader to have experience with the use of the chart in order to obtain information quickly. Although practitioners who utilize these charts become comfortable with the format, it does not lend itself to general distribution without the support of academic detailing
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 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.539 | 0.210 |
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".