Equity and Gender Issues Among Members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Gender equity has historically been a challenge within gastroenterology. Aims The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) developed a survey to identify issues pertaining to equity and gender faced by its membership and to determine areas of action. Methods In 2014, the survey was emailed to all 1155 CAG members, and the data were analyzed using statistical methods. Results One hundred eleven CAG members responded to the survey. Of those, 52% were male, 75% were between 26 and 45 years of age, and 55% were in their first decade of practice. More males held the status of full professor (21% versus 0%; P=0.022). Male CAG members reported working more hours per week than their female counterparts (58.3 ± 15.4 versus 52.3 ± 11.8, P=0.025). Regarding commitments outside the workplace, 81% of respondents had a spouse/partner, and 52% had children under 18 years of age, both of which did not significantly differ based on gender. Overall, 70% were satisfied or very satisfied with their career path. However, significantly more females felt their age/ethnicity/gender/marital status hindered career advancement (36% versus 14%; P=0.008). Furthermore, more females reported difficulties attaining work-life balance (45% versus 22%; P=0.015). Conclusions This survey highlights that gender and equity challenges continue to exist within gastroenterology. The needs assessment highlights that work-life balance, physician well-being, negotiation skills and mentorship are areas of importance to many CAG members.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".