Work-Life Policies for Canadian Medical Faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to catalogue and examine the following work-life flexibility policies at all 17 Canadian medical schools: maternity leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, extension of the probationary period for family responsibilities, part-time faculty appointments, job sharing, and child care. METHODS: The seven work-life policies of Canadian medical schools were researched using a consistent and systematic method. This method involved an initial web search for policy information, followed by e-mail and telephone contact. The flexibility of the policies was scored 0 (least flexible) to 3 (most flexible). RESULTS: The majority of policies were easily accessible online. Work-life policies were scored out of 3, and average policy scores ranged from 0.47 for job sharing to 2.47 for part-time/work reduction. Across schools, total scores ranged from 7 to 16 out of 21. Variation in scores was noted for parenting leave and child care, whereas minimal variation was noted for other policies. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian medical schools are committed to helping medical faculty achieve work-life balance, but improvements can be made in the policies offered at all schools. Improving the quality of work flexibility policies will enhance working conditions and job satisfaction for faculty. This could potentially reduce Canada's loss of talented young academicians.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".