‘Just the Way it Was’- Perspectives on Sexual Harassment in Medical School and #MeToo of Women Graduating Prior to 1975
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess gender-based mistreatment during medical education recalled by women who attended medical school between 1948 and 1975 and their perspectives on the #MeToo movement. Methods: Methods included a qualitative analysis of video-recorded structured interviews. Results: The 37 participants graduated in classes of 2-20% women. They described pervasive, multi-faceted gender-based mistreatment during training. Twenty (54%) disclosed personal experience of serious sexual mistreatment. Interviewees stressed that attitudes and behaviors toward women and trainees, now regarded as unacceptable, were previously widely accepted or tolerated. The majority (86%) expressed overall positive opinions of their training. Twenty-eight (76%) supported the #MeToo movement, four (11%) had negative opinions, and five (13.5%) were ambivalent or unwilling to comment. Seventeen (46%) were concerned that #MeToo damaged working relationships, twelve (32%) were concerned about overreach, and eight (22%) about false accusations. Conclusions: This group of older female physicians reported extensive experience of gender-based mistreatment and strong support of #MeToo. Nevertheless, about one quarter of the group did not support the #MeToo movement and even supporters expressed high rates of concern about the movement going too far, falsely accusing men of inappropriate behavior, and damaging working relationships. The interviewees did not want their medical training to be characterized as entirely negative, or to be portrayed as victims.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".