MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214568984 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.02.030

2021 AAPM Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Climate Survey Executive Summary

2022· article· en· W4214568984 on OpenAlexaff
K Hendrickson, Stephen Avery, Richard Castillo, Laura Cerviño, Ashley J. Cetnar, Nolan L. Gagne, Wendy Harris, Amirh M. Johnson, Megan E. Lipford, Nadia Octave, Kelly C. Paradis, A Pérez-Andújar, Surendra Prajapati, Julianne Pollard‐Larkin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches
FundersAmerican Association of Physicists in Medicine
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)Equity (law)HarassmentPolitical sciencePsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) shares the results, conclusions, and recommendations from the initial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Climate Survey conducted in 2021. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The climate survey targeted medical physicists who are full members of the AAPM and included demographic inquiries and questions intended to assess the working environmental climate in terms of a sense of belonging and inclusion, experiences of discrimination and harassment, and obstacles to participation within the AAPM. The survey invitation was sent to 5,500 members. Responses were collected from 1385 members (response rate of 25%) between January and February 2021. RESULTS: Overall, the medical physics workplace climate was positive. However, some demographic and professional subgroups reported lower levels of agreement with positive characteristics of their workplace climates. Compared with men, women ranked lower 7 of 8 categories that characterized the workplace climate. Other subgroups that also ranked the workplace climate descriptors lower included individuals not originally from the United States and Canada (3/8). Most respondents strongly agreed/agreed that the climate within the AAPM was welcoming. However, 17% of respondents reported personally experiencing or witnessing microaggressions within the AAPM. Overall, medical physicists reported low levels of agreement that opportunities within the AAPM were available to them, from 34% to 60% among 8 categories, including opportunities to volunteer, join committees, and compete for leadership positions within the AAPM. Several subgroups reported even lower levels of agreement that these opportunities are available. Asian and Asian American respondents (3/8) and physicists with origins in countries outside the United States and Canada (7/8) reported fewer opportunities to participate in the AAPM. Medical physicists reported their experiences of discrimination and sexual harassment in their workplaces and within the AAPM. For those who reported personal experiences of sexual harassment, only 24% (15/63) felt comfortable reporting when it occurred within their workplaces, and 35% (9/26) felt comfortable reporting when it occurred within the AAPM. CONCLUSIONS: The report concludes with several recommendations for action.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.028

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*PhysicsSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207