MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906375071 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/e5c6n

#MeTooOrthopaedics: A protocol to determine the prevalence of gender-based and sexual harassment in the field of orthopaedic surgery

2018· article· en· W6906375071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentDescriptive statisticsOrthopedic surgeryLogistic regressionProtocol (science)Computer-assisted web interviewingData collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Research shows that gender-based and sexual harassment are prevalent within training and practicing medical establishments, with differences across specific specialties. Orthopaedic surgery remains a male-dominated field, with recent statistics reporting women representing only 5% and 12% of orthopaedic surgeons in the United States and Canada, respectively. This represents a significant gender discrepancy and, although there may be many reasons why this discrepancy exists, it is justified to explore whether gender-based and sexual harassment may contribute to this disparity. Objectives. This study aims to determine the prevalence of gender-based and sexual harassment in orthopaedic surgery, and to determine the impact of these experiences on female orthopaedic surgeons. It will also explore the association of such gender-based and sexual harassment experiences with certain demographic factors. Methods. We will conduct a cross-sectional survey of female orthopaedic surgeons, fellows and residents that are current members of a participating orthopaedic society. We have developed a unique questionnaire to gather information concerning gender-based and sexual harassment experiences of female orthopaedic surgeons, fellows and residents throughout their education and current practices. The questionnaire will be administered online using SurveyMonkey®, the online survey tool, to ensure anonymity. Reminder emails will be distributed up to two times after the survey is initially distributed to maximize the number of responses and, thus, validity and generalizability. Descriptive analyses and multivariable logistic regression analyses will be conducted to analyze the collected data. Conclusions. The results of this study are likely to bring to light a critical issue in orthopaedic surgery and will hopefully provide the impetus for orthopaedic departments and societies to develop and enforce policies that limit these destructive behaviors in the workplace. We hope the results will provide sufficient information to determine if these experiences are one of the factors leading to the pronounced gender disparity within this field. Ethics and Dissemination. An ethics application is currently under review with the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB) in Hamilton, ON, Canada. The results of this initiative will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.288 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207