In their own words: describing Canadian physician leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This is the first study to compile statistical data to describe the functions and responsibilities of physicians in formal and informal leadership roles in the Canadian health system. This mixed-methods research study offers baseline data relative to this purpose, and also describes physician leaders' views on fundamental aspects of their leadership responsibility. Design/methodology/approach A survey with both quantitative and qualitative fields yielded 689 valid responses from physician leaders. Data from the survey were utilized in the development of a semi-structured interview guide; 15 physician leaders were interviewed. Findings A profile of Canadian physician leadership has been compiled, including demographics; an outline of roles, responsibilities, time commitments and related compensation; and personal factors that support, engage and deter physicians when considering taking on leadership roles. The role of health-care organizations in encouraging and supporting physician leadership is explicated. Practical implications The baseline data on Canadian physician leaders create the opportunity to determine potential steps for improving the state of physician leadership in Canada; and health-care organizations are provided with a wealth of information on how to encourage and support physician leaders. Using the data as a benchmark, comparisons can also be made with physician leadership as practiced in other nations. Originality/value There are no other research studies available that provide the depth and breadth of detail on Canadian physician leadership, and the embedded recommendations to health-care organizations are informed by this in-depth knowledge.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".