Fake It ’Til You Make It: Pressures to Measure Up in Surgical Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Expectations of certainty and confidence in surgical culture are a source of internal conflict for surgeons and learners, with surgeons describing a pressure to project an image that is, at times, inconsistent with how they feel internally. The authors explored surgical residents' perceptions of "impression management" and its effects on surgical judgment and decision making. METHOD: The authors used a constructivist grounded theory approach to conduct and analyze 15 semistructured interviews with general surgery trainees at an urban Canadian academic health center between 2012 and 2014. Interviews explored impression management in the context of resident learning and performance. Analysis was inductive, whereby emergent themes contributed to a developing conceptual framework, and deductive, using an existing theory of impression management. RESULTS: Residents described sensing an "expectation" to portray an image aligned with the ideal surgical stereotype of confidence and certainty, and shared strategies used to mirror this image. Impression management strategies were used to portray an image of competence, with the aim to improve access to teaching and evaluations. Unintended consequences of impression management on decision making, patient safety, and resident wellness were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the potential impact of the sociocultural context on residency training, and provide a language allowing for more explicit discussions about the impact of surgical culture on trainee behaviors. Translation includes formal instruction of these concepts in the curriculum so that trainees better recognize, reflect on, and cope with the pressures to perform in front of others.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".