{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013948497854077254, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.760869565217392, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Paradox of meritocracy in surgical selection, and of variation in the attractiveness of individual specialties: to what extent are women still disadvantaged?

Evidence from outside surgery suggests that meritocracy‐based processes around selection tend to reduce, rather than increase, diversity. In recent years, the surgical training boards have gone to considerable effort to achieve greater transparency and fairness in their selection processes, and to identify those attributes that are believed to best predict future success as a surgeon. This is consistent with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Diversity and Inclusion Plan, which places emphasis on gender equity and has goals that include increasing the attractiveness of surgery as a vocation for women, removing impediments to them applying to the surgical training programmes and removing any biases that might disadvantage them during the selection process.