Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Our objective was to compare personality traits between urologists and other surgeons, as well as between surgeons and non-surgeons.Methods: Eighty-six surgeons (57 faculty, 29 residents) completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), a validated measure of normal personality traits.Subjects agree or disagree with 240 statements to generate a score in each of the 5 major character traits: extraversion (E), openness (O), conscientiousness (C), agreeableness (A) and neuroticism (N).Each factor is subdivided into 6 component facets.Scores for urology faculty and residents were compared to the other surgical groups and 21 pediatricians.Results: The 3 groups differed significantly on extraversion (p < 0.001).Post-hoc analyses indicated that urologists obtained significantly higher extraversion scores than other surgeons (p < 0.05) and non-surgeons (p < 0.001) Other surgeons also scored significantly higher than non-surgeons on the extraversion factor (p < 0.05).No significant differences emerged on openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness or neuroticism.Of the 6 extraversion facets, urologists obtained significantly higher scores on gregariousness and excitement-seeking (p < 0.05) than non-urologist surgeons, and significantly higher scores on gregariousness (p < 0.05), activity (p < 0.01), excitement seeking (p < 0.001), and positive emotions (p < 0.05) than non-surgeons.Non-urologist surgeons obtained significantly higher scores than non-surgeons on Activity and Excitement-seeking (p < 0.01).There were no significant differences in the facets of warmth or assertiveness.Interpretation: Urologists appear to be more extraverted compared to other surgeons.Both groups of surgeons were more extraverted than non-surgeons.If these findings can be confirmed on a wider basis, the data may be helpful in resident selection, mentoring, evaluation and career counselling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".