MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205135080 · doi:10.37964/cr24747

How full is the glass? A perspective on women in medical leadership in Canada

2021· article· en· W3205135080 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
F. Gigi Osler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physician Leadership · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipRepresentation (politics)Perspective (graphical)Work (physics)Public relationsOrganizational culturePolitical scienceMedical educationMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What do we really know about the representation of female physicians in medical leadership in Canada? Female representation on the current boards of the Canadian Medical Association and provincial/territorial medical associations is 23% and 40%, respectively. Identified barriers to female medical leadership include gendered organizational and workplace culture, gender bias, inflexible work practices, unequal childcare and domestic responsibilities, and biased performance assessment criteria and recruitment practices. Identified enablers include flexible tenure policies, systematic parental leave policies, greater inclusivity in the workplace, and formal mentorship structures. More has been written about the costs of leadership for female physicians rather than the benefits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.157 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physician LeadershipSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207