Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to describe the design of a provincial government ministry group mentoring program and examine mentees’ and mentors’ experiences in the program. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 151 mentees rated their satisfaction in a post-program survey. The survey was followed by in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 10 mentees and 11 mentors. Findings – In all, 87 per cent of mentees rated their learning as effective. Benefits to mentees were relevance of the learning, and senior leader/mentors use of current issues, events and personal stories. Delivery through a combination of Web conferencing and collaboration technologies was most effective. Mentors learned from mentees and other mentors. Regular and full mentee participation was an identified issue. In addition, not all mentoring teams worked well together. Research limitations/implications – The selection criteria favored participants who had a positive experience. Including more participants who were disengaged or less active may have revealed what inhibited full engagement. Complex underlying systemic and cultural issues negatively affected mentee participation and mentoring team effectiveness. It is unclear whether this was caused by intrinsic or extrinsic barriers. Further study could shed light on how to address participation issues. Practical implications – Selection criteria favored highly active participants who had a positive experience. Including more disengaged or less active participants may have revealed barriers to full engagement. Social implications – Despite a context of extreme organizational churn, this program delivered cost-effective and engaging learning to a large number of employees. Recommendations are made to further strengthen the program. Originality/value – This contextually grounded case study will be useful to those who plan to implement a group mentoring program.
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 | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.006 |
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".