Perceptions of Leadership: Comparing Canadian and Irish Physiotherapists' Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To contribute to the growing body of research on leadership in physiotherapy by comparing leadership-related perceptions of physiotherapists in Ireland and in Canada. Methods: This article compares the results of a survey of Canadian physiotherapists with those of the same survey administered to Irish physiotherapists. The results of both studies have previously been reported and are used here to allow a cultural comparison of the perceptions of physiotherapists. The present study used two-portion Z-tests to compare the percentage of physiotherapists in Ireland who self-declared as a leader with the percentage of physiotherapists in Canada who did so. Results: Physiotherapists in both Ireland and Canada most often rated communication and professionalism as extremely important characteristics. Physiotherapists in Canada were more likely than those in Ireland to perceive themselves as leaders (Z=2.67, p < 0.05; 95% CI: 1.33, 9.87). Factors associated with self-declaration as a leader differed between the two countries. Conclusion: Physiotherapists in Canada and Ireland showed both similarities and differences in their perceptions of leadership characteristics. Results from this study may aid the development of future leadership training programmes specifically targeted at physiotherapists.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".