MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378472018 · doi:10.15695/jstem/v5i2.12

Approaches for Measuring Inclusive Demographics Across Youth Enjoy Science Cancer Research Training Programs

2023· article· en· W4378472018 on OpenAlexaff
Megan A. Mekinda, Sunita Chaudhary, Nathan L. Vanderford, Karen Burns White, Linda S. Kennedy, Lisa K. Marriott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of STEM Outreach · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersComprehensive Cancer Center, University of Chicago Medical CenterUniversity of Chicago MedicineNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational Cancer InstituteGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science AllianceDana-Farber/Harvard Cancer CenterDartmouth CollegeNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesOregon Health and Science University
KeywordsDemographicsOperationalizationWorkforceMedical educationDiversity (politics)Descriptive statisticsThematic analysisSurvey data collectionPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyDemographySocial scienceQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Youth Enjoy Science Program (YES) funds initiatives to support the cancer research training and career ambitions of middle school through undergraduate students from populations underrepresented in the biomedical sciences. The program has funded 16 institutions nationally as of January 2022. Given the program's focus on increasing diversity within the cancer research workforce, demographic characteristics of YES trainees provide essential information about the populations being served and program effectiveness. Six programs formed an interest group focused on trainee demographics and surveyed all YES grantees about their demographic data practices. Fifteen programs (94%) completed the survey. Survey data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and thematic coding. Findings revealed considerable variability in programs' approach to demographic data, including which demographics were measured, how they were operationalized, and when and how the data were collected. Half of YES programs (53%) could report underrepresented populations in biomedical research among trainees using consistent definitions. Most programs described efforts to improve their demographic data practices; however, challenges remained for the vast majority. In consideration of these findings, we offer recommendations for inclusive demographic data practices to better define and retain underrepresented populations in biomedical sciences.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.598
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.138 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of STEM OutreachSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207