Actually the most reviewing is, in my field and related ones, done exactly by the two categories that you wanted dismiss.
A reputed professor receive a large number of invitations, so that the ratio is high in spite of refusals.
A successful and young researcher receive relatively few but s/he tends to accept all as it is a new and certainly formative experience.
I suspect, as another answer points out, it's very much field and subfield related. I do personally reviewed much more papers than those I've published.
While a researcher in synthetic chemistry publish and might be invited by a few good journals, one in material science can do that in a broader range, spanning from physics and chemistry to dedicated publications. When preparation of new materials is involved, basically all papers are getting interesting and reviewing becomes a way to stay tune.
Similar scenario is plausible in many applied sciences.
In my field the number of reviewings largely exceeds that of the submitted/published papers for literally every graduate researcher that I ever met.
Also a ratio as those given in your Q, if not individually calculated, would block research publications. Simple maths suggests that ratio lower than one would be a big problem in the current procedure, except perhaps in fields where having about ten authors or more is common (still some of those fields have also more abundant literature, e.g. medicine).
Also having the name in a author list doesn't make you a referree, at least not one of first and even second choice for a good journal.
Edit 1 after the comment.
Edit 2: Stimulated by this I've finally registered on Publon. While importing most of my papers was a simple click, the thousand review I have done in the past will never show up. So at the current stage I have contributed X papers to literature without having been referee at all.
I've overlooked the fact that OP inspiration was Publon. Basically she can be confident of how much she is reviewing (not enough in my opinion, as for what I and others have written above) but in general one should be highly skeptical of those data, independent of their actual significance.