MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311257095 · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2022.101136

WeWhoCurie: An Initiative to Advocate for Those Underrepresented in Radiation Oncology

2022· article· en· W4311257095 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joy Ogunmuyiwa, Sara Beltrán Ponce, Crystal Seldon, Kelly C. Paradis, Amanda Khan, Michael A. Dyer, Parul Barry, Hina Saeed, Jenna M. Kahn, Afua A. Yorke

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Radiation Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation oncologySocial mediaTransgenderPopularityGlobeDiversity (politics)Family medicinePolitical scienceGender studiesInternal medicineRadiation therapySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: An initiative to advocate for those underrepresented in radiation oncology. Methods and Materials: Inspired by the success of the #ILookLikeAnEngineer and #ILookLikeASurgeon campaigns, this initiative aimed to break down stereotypes in traditionally male-dominated fields. In honor of Marie Curie's birthday, on November 7, 2018, the Society for Women in Radiation Oncology launched a social media campaign called #WomenWhoCurie day. However, as the popularity of the social media campaign increased, it become evident that members of the wider radiation community, in particular women of color, nonbinary and transgender people did not feel supported by the #WomenWhoCurie movement. In November 2021, after consultation with diversity and inclusion leaders and members of other national radiation oncology organizations, Society for Women in Radiation Oncology launched #WeWhoCurie alongside the #WomenWhoCurie campaign for women and gender minorities in radiation oncology. Radiation oncologists, physicists, dosimetrist, therapists, nurses, and other professionals from around the world gathered and shared photos and social media posts throughout the day on multiple platforms including Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Results: In the year #WeWhoCurie, #WomenWhoCurie, #_______ WhoCurie campaign launched, we saw an increase in participation across the globe from 9 countries: the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, Spain, China, New Zealand, and Australia. There were over 720 tweets contributing to the campaign with over 2000 messages, representing 3,365,444 "potential impacts", or the number of times someone saw the hashtag. Conclusions: " patients with cancer and conducting cutting edge research to improve cancer care across the globe. As an organization we believe adding our voices to the masses will foster a culture of inclusion for everyone. Afterall, what good is the practice of radiation oncology if all are not equally welcome?

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.017
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.006

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.396 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Radiation OncologySame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207