Exploring and understanding academic leadership in family medicine.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore how family physicians understand the concept of academic leadership. DESIGN: Case study. SETTING: Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty family physician academic leaders. METHODS: Focus groups and interviews were conducted with family physicians from a large multisite urban university who were identified by peers as academic leaders at various career stages. Transcripts from the focus groups and interviews were anonymized and themes were analyzed and negotiated among 3 researchers. MAIN FINDINGS: Participants identified qualities of leadership among academic leaders that align with those identified in the current literature. Despite being identified by others as academic leaders, participants were reluctant to self-identify as such. Participants believed they had taken on early leadership roles by default rather than through planned career development. CONCLUSION: This study affirms the need to define academic leadership explicitly, advance a culture that supports it, and nurture leaders at all levels with a variety of strategies.
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 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 it