Developing Canadian physician: the quest for leadership effectiveness
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
Purpose The purpose of this study is to discern the physicians' perception of leadership effectiveness in their clinical and non-clinical roles (leadership) by identifying their political skill levels. Design/methodology/approach A sample of 209 Canadian physicians was surveyed using the Political Skills Inventory (PSI) during the period 2012-2014. The PSI was chosen because it assesses leadership effectiveness on four dimensions: social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability and apparent authenticity. Findings Physicians in clinical roles' PSI scores were significantly lower in all four PSI dimensions when compared to all other physicians in non-clinical roles, with the principal difference being in their networking abilities. Practical implications More emphasis is needed on educating and training physicians, specifically in the areas of political skills, in current clinical roles if they are to assume leadership roles and be effective. Originality/value Although this study is located in Canada, the study design and associated findings may have implications to other areas and countries wanting to increase physician leadership effectiveness. Further, replication of this study in other settings may provide insight into the future design of physician leadership training curriculum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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