Canadian female perspectives on training in the boys club: advanced therapeutic endoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Unequal female representation in the field of advanced therapeutic endoscopy (ATE) has been recently highlighted in the United States. Previous attempts to determine the barriers to entry into the career have reported a lack of mentorship, patriarchy, inflexible hours/calls and exposure to fluoroscopy. Canadian trainee exposure to ATE and differences in experience between men and women is unknown. Objectives We sought to determine the barriers to pursuing a career in ATE, specifically focussing on the perspectives of Canadian female gastroenterology fellows. Methods An online survey was developed and distributed to Canadian gastroenterology fellows enrolled in Royal College-accredited programs in 2021-2022 Results Responses were received from gastroenterology fellows at 12 of the 14 Canadian programs. The response rate was 46% (n = 42, 16 female respondents and 26 male respondents). An equal proportion of male (42%, n = 11) and female (38%, n = 6) trainees indicated interest in a career in ATE. Thirty-eight per cent (n = 6) of female trainees felt that they had inadequate mentorship opportunities/role models within ATE, in comparison to 4% (n = 1) of males (P = .004). Furthermore, 19% (n = 3) of females felt that this lack of mentorship/role models was a primary deterrent from pursuing ATE as a career, in comparison to 0% of males (P = .02). There was equal self-perceived competency surrounding ATE knowledge between both men and women. Conclusions Female gastroenterology fellows in Canada lack mentorship and role models in ATE, which seems to be a primary deterrent from pursuing it as a career when compared to their male counterparts. Recognizing and addressing the lack of female leadership and visibility is necessary to improve parity and encourage women to train in the male-dominated field of ATE.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".