MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128076596 · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31816be551

Evaluating a Leadership Program: A Comparative, Longitudinal Study to Assess the Impact of the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) Program for Women

2008· article· en· W2128076596 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Medicine, Drexel UniversitySchool of Medicine, Vanderbilt UniversityUniversity of MichiganMedical School, University of MichiganGeorge Washington UniversityJessie Ball duPont FundRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsAcademic medicinePsychologyMedical educationLongitudinal studyProgram evaluationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The Hedwig van Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) program provides an external yearlong development program for senior women faculty in U.S. and Canadian medical schools. This study aims to determine the extent to which program participants, compared with women from two comparison groups, aspire to leadership, demonstrate mastery of leadership competencies, and attain leadership positions. METHOD: A pre-/posttest methodology and longitudinal structure were used to evaluate the impact of ELAM participation. Participants from two ELAM cohorts were compared with women who applied but were not accepted into the ELAM program (NON) and women from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster. The AAMC group was a baseline for midcareer faculty; the NON group allowed comparison for leadership aspiration. Baseline data were collected in 2002, with follow-up data collected in 2006. Sixteen leadership indicators were considered: administrative leadership attainment (four indicators), full professor academic rank (one), leadership competencies and readiness (eight), and leadership aspirations and education (three). RESULTS: For 15 of the indicators, ELAM participants scored higher than AAMC and NON groups, and for one indicator they scored higher than only the AAMC group (aspiration to leadership outside academic health centers). The differences were statistically significant for 12 indicators and were distributed across the categories. These included seven of the leadership competencies, three of the administrative leadership attainment indicators, and two of the leadership aspirations and education indicators. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that the ELAM program has a beneficial impact on ELAM fellows in terms of leadership behaviors and career progression.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.788
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it