[no title]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyze the attitudes, preferences, and thematic interests of hospital and clinical pharmacists in Bulgaria regarding continuing professional education and engagement in scientific research activities. A mixed-method quantitative and qualitative approach was employed through an anonymous online survey targeting pharmacists working in hospital settings nationwide. The data analysis revealed a high level of motivation to participate in educational initiatives, with a notable preference for hybrid learning formats that combine the advantages of face-to-face and online education. Respondents’ thematic interests span a broad range of clinical, regulatory, and interdisciplinary topics, underscoring the need for an integrated and comprehensive approach in developing educational programs. Furthermore, open-ended responses highlight key demands for accessibility, practical relevance, institutional recognition, international exchange of experience, and the establishment of platforms for scientific communication. The findings provide a valuable foundation for optimizing continuing education strategies and strengthening the professional role of hospital pharmacists within the Bulgarian healthcare system.
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".