The times are changing: articulating the requisite leadership behaviours needed to embed equity, diversity and inclusivity into our healthcare systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last decade has opened many eyes and awakened many hearts to prevailing societal and global inequities. Major sociopolitical events of the past decade as well as the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted demographic, racial, socioeconomical, geographical and other inequities with negative impact on health and wellbeing. Healthcare leaders, in the privileged position of influence, would benefit from an enhanced capabilities framework that articulates the specific actions and behaviours needed to embed equity, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) into their regular activities and ultimately into the healthcare system as a whole. The LEADS in a Caring Environment Capabilities Framework has been widely adopted in Canada and is similar to other national health leadership frameworks. Enhancements through an EDI lens are highly generalisable and can be contextually adapted to improve health, well-being and social justice worldwide.
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 | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".