MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412525187 · doi:10.1080/10903127.2025.2536222

Gender and Pay Gaps in Paramedic Services Leadership in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4412525187 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dominique Arseneau-Bruneau, Justin Mausz, Sarah Salvis, Andy Tannous, Elizabeth Donnelly

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Toronto
FundersDepartment of Health Services, University of Washington
KeywordsMedicineNursingEmergency medical servicesMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES Research suggests that women are underrepresented in healthcare leadership and often earn less than men. This may be true in the emergency medical services (EMS) as well, but research on the subject is limited and specific data in Canada are scarce. This study aimed to estimate the gender and income distributions among leadership within Ontario's paramedic servicesMETHODS We abstracted records for leadership positions (e.g., superintendent, commander, deputy chief, chief) from the Ontario Public Sector Salary Disclosure List. Two raters independently assessed the presumed binary gender of each individual, resolving discrepancies through consensus. Interrater agreement was measured using a kappa statistic. Chi-square tests compared the proportions of men and women at different leadership levels (entry, middle, executive). Income distributions were compared using parametric and non-parametric tests, stratified by leadership levelRESULTS Our search yielded 863 individuals from 49 (out of 54) paramedic services. Interrater agreement on presumed gender was 95% (κ = 0.87, p < 0.001). After resolving discrepancies (n = 43), we achieved complete agreement for 855 individuals (98%). Among the sample, 655 (76%) were presumed to be men. Women held 23% of entry, 35% of middle, and 15% of executive leadership roles. Within the leadership pool and compared to men, women were twice as likely to hold a middle leadership role (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.00, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.35-2.98, p < 0.001) but less likely to hold an executive leadership position (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.87, p = 0.012). Median income distributions were comparable at the executive level (p = 0.327), but lower for women at the middle and entry leadership levels, earning $0.90 (p < 0.001) and $0.95 (p < 0.001) for every dollar earned by men, respectively. Gender accounted for 1.7% of the variance in total earnings.CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest the existence of both gender and pay gaps in leadership, the reasons for which are not immediately apparent and warrant further study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital Emergency CareSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207