A Better Lifestyle During Surgical Clerkship May Not Increase Application Rates to General Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lifestyle has been identified by numerous studies as the number one deterrent to pursuing a career in general surgery. This study tests the hypothesis that a better lifestyle during general surgery clerkship correlates with a higher application rate to general surgery. METHODS: Canadian Residency Matching Service data from the past 10 years were used to identify institution-specific application rates to general surgery. Through a survey of all fourth-year medical students applying to general surgery in Canada and Canadian undergraduate surgery program directors, the lifestyle of each general surgery clerkship was described and given a score. RESULTS: Multiple descriptions of the clerkship structure were obtained for every school in Canada to reduce recall bias, with an average of 4 sources per program. One school stood out as the most prolific producer of general surgery applicants, with an average of 7.9% of the total class applying to general surgery each year. This represented 80% more general surgery applicants relative to the national average (p < 0.05). Surprisingly, however, this institution also had the worst clerkship lifestyle score, having a higher call requirement, not sending their clerks home at noon post call, and placing a higher burden of responsibility on their clerks. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a lifestyle-friendly surgical clerkship may not be necessary to increase recruitment into general surgery.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".