Women in orthodontics and work-family balance: challenges and strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of women entering the orthodontic profession over the past few decades has increased dramatically. A review of the literature revealed the lack of research on achieving a work-family balance among female dentists and dental specialists. Work-family balance has been researched more extensively in the field of medicine; however, despite some critical differences, parallels between these 2 professions exist. This study identified issues that Canadian female orthodontists face and strategies they use to achieve a work-family balance. A phenomenological qualitative study was used to analyze the results of semi-structured telephone interviews of a purposive sample of 13 Canadian female orthodontists. The results strongly support the role-conflict theory about the competing pressures of maternal and professional roles. Female orthodontists described their challenges and strategies to minimize role conflict in their attempt to achieve a work-family balance. The women defined balance as having success and satisfaction in both their family life and professional life. They identified specific challenges of achieving a work-family balance that are unique to orthodontic practice and strategies for adapting to their maternal and professional roles. Achieving a work-family balance is of paramount importance to female orthodontists, and the results of this study may be applied to other specialties in dentistry.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".