MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411420276 · doi:10.1503/cjs.015723

Gender representation in professorship and research productivity across all surgical specialties in Canadian academic institutions

2025· article· en· W4411420276 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stuti M. Tanya, Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, Maxine Joly-Chevrier, Daiana R. Pur, Sanjay Sharma, Fiona Costello, Femida Kherani, Vincent Quoc‐Huy Trinh, Isabelle Hardy, Leonardo Landó

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioSpecialtyProductivityAcademic institutionLogistic regressionScopusDemographyConfoundingFamily medicineConfidence intervalMEDLINEInternal medicineManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Disparate gender representation among Canadian academic surgeons is documented; however, the association of academic rank with research productivity across all surgical specialties is not well understood. Our objective was to assess differences in gender representation by academic rank and research productivity metrics for surgical specialties in Canadian academic centres. Methods This retrospective, cross-sectional, comparative study used online public databases in 2021. Data sources included the Canadian Resident Matching Service program descriptions, College of Physicians and Surgeons databases, the Scopus platform, and professional websites. Gender distribution by academic rank, research productivity metrics, institution, and surgical specialty were tested for a 0.5 proportion rate. We used a generalized logistic regression model adjusting for confounders to assess gender association with ordinally ranked academic rank. We defined significance by p < 0.05 with reported 95% confidence intervals. Results We assessed 10 surgical specialties across 17 Canadian academic institutions. Women surgeons were underrepresented in 16 out of 17 centres ( p < 0.001), comprising the majority in only obstetrics–gynecology ( p < 0.001). Women were also less represented as assistant (37%), associate (27%), and full professors (18%) ( p < 0.001), with lower mean h -index (6.4, p < 0.001), years active in research (11.5, p < 0.001), number of publications (18, p < 0.001), and m -quotient (0.42, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that men were more likely to be represented in senior professorship regardless of research productivity, institution, and specialty determinants (odds ratio 1.30–1.33, p = 0.001–0.024). Conclusion Women surgeons were underrepresented across all academic ranks, were less likely to achieve senior professorship, and had lower research productivity metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.425
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.061 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Surgery→Same topicDiversity and Career in Medicine→French-language works237,207→