What women want: a qualitative analysis of women’s motivation to pursue surgical careers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was undertaken to explore what motivates women to pursue surgical careers. Design: Qualitative methods were employed in this interview-based study. Interviews were recorded, manually anonymized and transcribed, and thematized using NVivo software. Setting: This study was conducted at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada. Participants: Recruitment for this study via email requested volunteers who identified as women and were medical students considering a career in surgery. Recruitment continued until data was saturated. A total of 8 participants volunteered and were included. Results: This study revealed five themes associated with women's motivation to pursue surgical careers; mentorship, inherent aspirations, lived experience, and proof of capability, preconceived ideals. The commonest theme was mentorship. The women who participated in this study employed unconventional methods when seeking mentorship, some of which are unique to this work. Conclusions: The most prevalent factors influencing women's motivation to pursue surgical careers are mentorship, inherent aspirations, participants' lived experience, a desire to prove their capability, and their preconceived ideals about surgery. All factors were deeply influential over one another. A greater understanding of these factors may help future researchers and educators create a more fulfilling career for women in 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it