Gender-based differences in letters of recommendation in applications for general surgery residency programs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, residency programs do not have many objective measures for ranking candidates. Instead, ranking relies on subjective measures such as letters of reference, which can be affected by the genders of the writer and the applicant. Our study assesses letters of recommendation for a general surgery program in Canada to categorize differences in reference letters based on the genders of applicant and letter writer. METHODS: We assessed 215 reference letters from 51 general surgery candidates for systematic differences in the descriptors used for male and female applicants and differences based on male and female authorship. RESULTS: Female applicants were more often described as mature, pleasant and flexible. Male applicants were more often described as having initiative, completing research, earning awards and performing extracurricular activities. Female writers were more likely to highlight an applicant's interest, initiative, response to feedback, knowledge of their limits, flexibility, communication, achievement in research and awards, confidence and ability to be a good assistant. Significantly more female applicants had female letter writers, compared with male applicants. CONCLUSION: These differences may affect the acceptance of applicants based on their gender and the genders of people who recommend them. Future research is required to explore how these differences in how applicants are described may affect residency selection committees' perceptions and rankings of applicants.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".