Gender Issues in Physiotherapy in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study examines gender differences in the physiotherapy (PT) profession in the province of Quebec regarding: (1) areas of practice; (2) roles associated with the advancement of the profession; (3) formal disciplinary complaints; and (4) interests and competency perceptions of PT students. Methods: We collected data from the Canadian Institute of Health Information, the Quebec Professional Order of Physiotherapy, Quebec university public Internet sites, and PT associations. We also surveyed PT students at the Université de Montréal. Results: The PT workforce in Quebec was 76.6% women. The presidents of the four main PT associations were men. In the five university programmes, the percentage of male and female physiotherapists in tenure track positions was 46% and 54%, respectively. There were more sanctioned complaints of sexual misconduct and not maintaining continuing education for male physiotherapists, while more women were sanctioned for problems with documentation and billing. Among students, men were more interested in becoming administrators, but neither men nor women had a strong interest in research. Conclusions: Male physiotherapists make up 23.4% of the PT workforce in Quebec but are more involved in leadership positions in the profession than women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".