MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1994252418 · doi:10.1097/00001888-200404000-00014

Reflections of a Part-Time Physician

2004· article· en· W1994252418 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Audrey Shafer

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDiversity and Career in Medicine
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpouseFull-timeValue (mathematics)Medical schoolPsychologyWork (physics)Medical educationMedicineAcademic medicineFamily medicineSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It is all going to be wrong if a third of the openings in medical school have been awarded to part-time professionals or misplaced housewives. One hopes that the new woman physician learns quickly the value of her considerable profession and its consequent considerable income, and frees herself of many things that can be done well by others.1 —E. Grey Dimond Lacking any knowledge or self-awareness vis-à-vis parenthood, I did not consider, during school or residency, that I would ever work less than full-time. Even during pregnancy, I did not reflect on part-time possibilities. I had my first child when I was a fellow; the terminology itself suggests some gender-bending gestational experiment. Yet in some ways, I was a fellow—prior to motherhood. By a year after my son's birth, as I worked full-time, I became unhappy with my work-to-home time ratio. Even though my husband was similarly enthralled with our child's every expression and mere presence, he felt no need to spend more time with our son. My spouse and I had been medical students together, then residents, then fellows, but by the time we began our academic careers, I had changed. I initially cut back to 80% time, then, finding no improvement, to 50%. In academic anesthesiology, this means I work approximately 35–40 hours per week. Reduced-hours work has been reported to be as high as 60 hours per week.2 The fact that working part-time in medicine is considered unusual, and that such part-time work might be almost full-time in another profession, is telling. Years ago, I was asked to participate in a panel on “alternative lifestyles” at a conference on women in medicine. Reflecting on my extremely “square” existence—a job in academia; a suburban Leave-It-to-Beaver house with patch of grass and sizable mortgage; a supportive husband; a healthy child and a dog (a Labrador, no less), I could not fathom why anyone would categorize my lifestyle as alternative. When I asked the conference organizer, she readily replied, “That's easy. You're alternative because you work part-time.” I have only two children and the youngest is now 12 years old, yet I'm still a part-timer. I am fortunate to have the luxury of such choices, and I don't pretend to advocate part-time for everyone. Perhaps I'm stuck in the rut of the trail I helped blaze, but in fact, I frequently feel pressure to rejoin the full-timers on the main road. This pressure may be due to my chosen specialty, but it may also be an internalization of the general medical work ethic. Though studies demonstrate that part-time work is not associated with decrements in patient satisfaction nor care,3 the unstated premise for such studies is that the culture of medicine equates dedication with long hours. It is true that someone else could listen to my children and sort out their various daily triumphs and agonies. But if it is not their mum, then I have missed an irretrievable, substantial part of their lives. Rather, I believe that as a part-time physician, I not only have a considerable profession, but one whose rewards include flexibility, dedication, and joy. Audrey Shafer, MD

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,034

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,007
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,030
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,390
Écart entre enseignants0,329 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcademic MedicineMême sujetDiversity and Career in MedicineTravaux en français237 207