Identifying potential academic leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To identify variables associated with willingness to undertake leadership roles among academic family medicine faculty. Design Web-based survey. Bivariate and multivariable analyses (logistic regression) were used to identify variables associated with willingness to undertake leadership roles. Setting Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario. Participants A total of 687 faculty members. Main outcome measures Variables related to respondents’ willingness to take on various academic leadership roles. Results Of all 1029 faculty members invited to participate in the survey, 687 (66.8%) members responded. Of the respondents, 596 (86.8%) indicated their level of willingness to take on various academic leadership roles. Multivariable analysis revealed that the predictors associated with willingness to take on leadership roles were as follows: pursuit of professional development opportunities (odds ratio [OR] 3.79, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.27); currently holding at least 1 leadership role (OR 5.37, 95% CI 3.38 to 8.53); a history of leadership training (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.78); the perception that mentorship is important for one’s current role (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.60); and younger age (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99). Conclusion Willingness to undertake new or additional leadership roles was associated with 2 variables related to leadership experiences, 2 variables related to perceptions of mentorship and professional development, and 1 demographic variable (younger age). Interventions that support opportunities in these areas might expand the pool and strengthen the academic leadership potential of faculty members.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".