Physicians as parents: parenting experiences of physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experiences of physicians as parents and to see if there were any differences in the parenting challenges perceived by male and female physicians. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Newfoundland and Labrador. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was mailed to 180 male and 180 female licensed physicians, with a response rate of 60% (N = 216). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported experiences of being a parent and a physician. RESULTS: Female physicians reported spending significantly more time on child care activities and domestic activities than their male counterparts did (P < .001). There was no significant difference in the number of professional hours between the 2 sexes, but income was significantly lower for female physicians (P < .001). More women than men had positive physician-parent role models, although very few physicians of either sex had such role models. Female physicians reported bearing the most responsibility for the day-to-day functioning of the family; male physicians relied on their female partners to carry out the main family responsibilities. Women reported feeling guilty about their performance as mothers and as doctors. Male physicians reported regrets about the lack of time with family. CONCLUSION: Although women make up an increasing percentage of the physician work force in Canada, they still face challenges as they continue to take primary responsibility for child care and domestic activities. Women are torn between their careers and their families and sometimes feel inadequate in both roles. Male physicians regret having a lack of time with family. Strategies need to be employed in both the workplace and at home to achieve an acceptable balance between being a physician and being a parent.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".