Disparate participation by gender of conference attendants in scientific discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One important metric of a radiologist's visibility and influence is their ability to participate in discussion within their community. The goal of our study was to compare the participation level of men and women in scientific discussions at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). Eleven volunteers collected participation data by gender in 59 sessions (286 presentations) at the 2018 RSNA meeting. Data was analyzed using a combination of Chi-squared, paired Wilcoxon signed-rank and T-test. Of all RSNA professional attendees at the RSNA, 68% were men and 32% were women. Of the 2869 presentations listed in the program, 65% were presented by men and 35% were presented by women. Of the 286 presentations in our sample, 177 (61.8%) were presented by men and 109 (38.1%) were presented by women. Of these 286 presentations, 81 (63%) were moderated by men and 47 (37%) were moderated by women. From the audience, 190 male attendees participated in 134 question-and-answer (Q&A) sessions following presentations and 58 female attendees participated in 52 Q&A sessions (P<0.001). Female attendees who did participate in Q&A sessions talked for a significantly shorter period of time (mean 7.14 ± 17.7 seconds, median 0) compared to male attendees (28.7 ± 29.6 seconds, median 16; P<0.001). Overall, our findings demonstrate that women participated less than men in the Q&A sessions at RSNA 2018, and talked for a shorter period of time. The fact that women were outnumbered among their male peers may explain the difference in behavior by gender.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".