International women physicians’ perspectives on choosing an academic medicine career
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Concerns about recruiting physicians into academic careers is an international issue. A qualitative study with United States (US) women physicians revealed insights into how, when, and why physicians choose an academic career in medicine. The current study explored international women physicians' perspectives on their career choice of academic medicine and determined if different themes emerged. We expanded the 2012 study of US women physicians by interviewing women physicians in Canada, Pakistan, Mexico, and Sweden to gain an international perspective on choosing an academic career. Interviews were thematically analyzed against themes identified in the previous study. Based on themes identified in the study of US physicians, qualitative analysis of 7 international women physicians revealed parallel themes for the following areas: Why academic medicine? Fit; People; Aspects of academic health centre environment. How the decision to enter academic medicine was made? Decision-making style; Emotionality When the decision to enter academic medicine was made? Practising physician; Fellowship; Medical student. Work-life balance, choosing academic medicine by default, serendipity, intellectual stimulation, mentors, research and teaching were among the areas specifically highlighted. CONCLUSION: Parallel themes exist regarding how, why, and when US and international women physicians choose academic medicine as a career path.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 teacher head, 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".