The place of women in Canadian surgical subspecialities : how gender influences research productivity in academic ophthalmology, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and urology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The road to advancing gender equity in academic surgery takes longer than in other medical specialties. Disparities in high academic ranks and leadership positions persist. Methods: Ophthalmology, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and urology residency programs were identified from the Canadian Resident Matching Service website. Academic rank was identified for all clinician faculty members using the university websites of residency programs. Gender was verified using provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons databases. h index, number of publications, number of citations, and number of years active were collected using Scopus. Demographic data were reported using descriptive and basic statistics. The effect of gender based on these criteria was assessed using a two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test. Results: Among 690 ophthalmologists, 73% (n=505) were men and 27% (n=185) were women. The median and interquartile range (IQR) for h index in men and women were 6.0 [3-11] and 5.0 [3-9], respectively. Men had significantly more publications (p=.009), citations (p=.022), and active years (p<.001). There was no significant difference in h-index between men and women (p=.058). Among 386 otolaryngologists, 80% (n=307) were men and 20% (n=79) were women. The median and IQR for h index in men and women were 7.5 [3-16] and 6.0 [2-9], respectively. Men had significantly more publications (p=.012), citations (p=.029), active years (p< 0.001), and higher h index (p=.007). Among 301 plastic surgeons, 72% (n=216) were men and 28% (n=85) were women. The median and IQR for h-index in men and women were 5.0 [2-11] and 5.0 [3-10], respectively. There was no significant difference between men and women for h-indices (p=.549), number of publications (p=.507), citations (p=.107), unlike for the number of active years (p<.001). Among 260 urologists, 88% (n=230) were men and 12% (n=30) were women. The median and IQR for h index in men and women were 12.0 [5-26] and 8.0 [4-15], respectively. Men had significantly more publications (p=.026) and citations (p=.004). H-indices (p=.098) and the number of active years (p=.148) were not statistically different between both genders. Among all assessed surgical subspecialties, men occupied 85% of full professorship (254 men, 43 women) and 76% of overall faculty positions (1205 men, 371 women). Conclusion: Gender disparities in academic representation were observed in all surgical subspecialties. Plastic surgery demonstrated the least discrepancy in research productivity metrics by gender, followed by urology, ophthalmology, and otolaryngology.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».