8. New Faculty Perceptions of Supervision and Mentoring: The Influence of Graduate School Experiences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined new faculty members’ perceptions and approaches to student supervision and mentoring as related to their own experiences as doctoral students. Previous research has examined the graduate student-supervisor/mentor relationship but has yet to examine its impact on subsequent graduate student practices when they enter academic positions. Fourteen Canadian faculty members participated in a study on the experiences and expectations of doctoral candidates and early career academics. As a group, these new faculty members perceived that ideally a supervisor would also be a mentor. They perceived that a mentor shares professional and personal experience, functions as a ‘sounding board,’ provides guidance and advice, and helps prepare students for the work they are currently doing and for their career responsibilities in the future. A majority of these new faculty members reported that their graduate supervisors were not their only mentor or did not function as a mentor. Furthermore, all participants reported that they consciously made an effort to include mentorship as part of their supervisory role. These findings indicated that graduate students’ own experiences of being supervised and/or mentored informed approaches with their own students. This research shows the apparent value in studying the influences of these important graduate school relationships and demonstrates the way in which our perspectives on supervisory relationships may influence subsequent practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it