Making the 2007-2010 Action Plan work for women in family medicine in the Asia Pacific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Wonca Working Party for Women and Family Medicine (WWPWFM) was organized in 2001 with the following objectives: to identify the key issues for women doctors; to review Wonca policies and procedures for equity and transparency; to provide opportunities to network at meetings and through the group's listserve and website; and to promote women doctors' participation in Wonca initiatives.In October 2008, at the Asia Pacific Regional conference, the Wonca Working Party on Women in Family Medicine (WWPWFM) held a preconference day and conference workshops, building on the success and commitment to initiatives which enhance women's participation in Wonca developed in Ontario, Canada (2006) and at the Singapore World Congress (2007). At this meeting fifty women workshopped issues for women in Family Medicine in the Asia Pacific. Using the Action Plan formulated in Singapore (2007) the participants identified key regional issues and worked towards a solution.Key issues identified were professional issues, training in family medicine and women's health. Solutions were to extend the understanding of women's contributions to family medicine, improved career pathways for women in family medicine and improving women's participation in practices, family medicine organizations and academic meetings.
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 | 0.042 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".