Impact of gender and caregiving responsibilities on academic success in hematology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously identified gender disparities in academic success during evaluation of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Clinical Research Training Institute (CRTI) and hypothesized that it may be related to caregiving. The objective was to evaluate the impact of gender and caregiving responsibilities on academic success. A cross-sectional survey that included a question about caregiving responsibilities was distributed to alumni who participated in CRTI from 2003 to 2016 and asked about academic productivity in the previous 3 years. Publications and grants were abstracted from submitted curriculum vitae. Academic success was defined as number of first- or senior-author publications, total publications, grants, and percent effort in research. Of 280 potential respondents, 258 responded (92% response rate), 169 (66%) had caregiving responsibilities, and 110 (43%) were men. Respondents with caregiving responsibilities had fewer first- or senior-author publications (median, 3 vs 5; P = .003) and less percent effort in research (median, 40% vs 50%; P = .006). Men had more first- or senior-author publications (median, 4 vs 3; P = .002) and more total publications (median, 12 vs 6.5; P = .0002) than women. When stratified by those without (P = .0001) or with (P = .042) caregiving responsibilities, men had more publications than women. Among men, caregiving responsibilities significantly reduced all outcomes. However, among women, caregiving did not have an impact. In conclusion, men had more publications than women whether or not they had caregiving responsibilities. However, among men, caregiving reduced academic productivity whereas among women, caregiving did not have impact. The scientific community will need to continue to identify the reasons for disparities and implement changes to address them.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".