Which Way to Lean? A National Study of Women Dental Faculty Members’ Career Aspirations and Choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this first national study of women in academic dentistry was to explore factors and perceived barriers for why administrative/leadership positions were or were not sought via data collected from full-time women dental faculty members in the U.S. In fall 2015, the researchers conducted a survey that employed a combination of response formats: forced choice from a menu, multiple allowable answers, and open-ended written comments. The overall response rate for the survey was 35.6% (537/1504). Respondents were from 48 of the 65 U.S. dental schools. Half of the respondents indicated their primary appointment was in clinical sciences, 22.9% were in administration, 7.3% in research, 7.1% in basic science, and 2.5% in behavioral science. While a quarter of the respondents indicated administration as their primary appointment, over half reported holding administrative positions, and nearly all (92.4%) reported currently holding leadership roles at their institutions. For those not currently in administrative/leadership roles, 52.6% indicated a desire for an administrative role and 70.7% a leadership role. Of those in administrative/leadership roles, 62.1% indicated not receiving extra remuneration for those responsibilities. Half of the respondents perceived that they were paid less in their current position than men doing the same work. The most dominant theme emerging from qualitative analysis of barriers the respondents experienced was the difficulty women in dental education have in a traditionally male-dominated profession. The results confirmed that women faculty members are "leaning in" to seek administrative/leadership roles in academic dentistry. However, pay equity remains an issue, and faculty development and mentoring are needed for the advancement of academic dentistry and ultimately the dental profession.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".