Gender Differences and Predictors of Work Hours in a Sample of Ontario Dentists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the influence of gender on weekly work hours of Ontario dentists. METHODS: In 2012, a 52-item survey was sent to a random sample of 3000 Ontario dentists (1500 men and 1500 women) to collect information on personal, professional and sociodemographic characteristics. The resulting data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling. RESULTS: The 867 respondents included 463 men, 401 women and 3 people whose gender was unreported, yielding a response rate of 29%.Most dentists worked full-time, with men working, on average, 2 h/week longer than women. Younger dentists worked more than older dentists. Practice ownership increased weekly work hours, and men reported ownership more often than women. Canadian-trained women worked significantly fewer hours than those trained internationally. Women were more likely than men to work part time and take parental leave and more often reported being primary caregivers and solely responsible for household chores. Women with partner support for such tasks worked more hours than those who were solely responsible. Dentists with children ≤ 3 years of age worked fewer hours than those without children; however, after controlling for spousal responsibility for caregiver duties, this effect was eliminated. More women than men reported making concessions in their career to devote time to family. CONCLUSION: Gender, age, practice ownership, training location and degree of spousal support for household and caregiving responsibilities were predictors of weekly work hours. For women specifically, training location and household and caregiving responsibilities predicted weekly work hours.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".