Creation and Program Evaluation of a Women in Surgery in ENT (WISE) Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ImportanceInterest in equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in medicine is growing, with women now making up 54% of Canadian physicians under the age of 40. Despite this, women in surgery remain underrepresented, facing challenges such as professional isolation. In response, a Women in Surgery in (WISE) Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) group was created to foster EDI. This is the first journal club of its kind described in the literature.ObjectiveOur objective was to describe the creation and program evaluation of a WISE group.Design(1) Setting and Intervention: A quarterly journal club meeting was created in a hybrid format to discuss peer-reviewed articles on EDI. Grant funding was obtained from a physician association's wellness budget. (2) Participants: Responses were from members of a Canadian University's otolaryngology mailing list attending these sessions. There were multiple responses from some of the same individuals across the 7 meetings. (3) Outcome Measures: An anonymous web-based survey with Likert-style questions was administered to participants 1 week after each session. General self-efficacy scale (GSES) was also administered. Moore's pyramid of effectiveness in continuing medical education was used as a framework for program evaluation.ResultsEighty-two responses to the survey were collected over 7 meetings. Among the 75 who responded to the gender identification question, 57 (76%) identified as women and 18 (24%) identified as men. Responses included 38 (46%) attendings, 8 (10%) fellows, 29 (35%) residents, and 7 (9%) medical students. Ninety percent of the responses "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the group promoted collegiality, 82% of the responses "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the group supported the participants' well-being, and 89% of the responses "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the group provided a safe environment for discussion. The responses showed that the initiative was rated as outstanding by 48% and above average by 46%. From the responses, the GSES was high at 31.0 ± 4.3.ConclusionsA WISE group has been created and highly rated. This initiative represents one step of the university's ENT division's commitment to EDI.
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 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".