THE ROLE OF RELATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND TUTORING ACTIVITIES IN THE PERCEPTIONS OF RECEIVED SUPPORT AND QUALITY OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIP DURING A COMMUNITY-BASED MENTORING RELATIONSHIP
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
Previous research has shown that activities between volunteer mentors and youth mentees are associated with relationship quality. Using data from a longitudinal investigation of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) community mentoring relationships across Canada, the current study investigated whether different types of activities (relational and skill, recreational, and tutoring) moderate the association between mentees’ perceptions of received support and subsequent relationship quality. The results showed that, irrespective of activity type, activity frequency was positively associated with perceptions of received support and relationship quality. More importantly, higher frequency of recreational activities strengthened the positive association between perceptions of received support and relationship quality, whereas higher frequency of tutoring activities weakened this association. The implications for the provision of relational and skill, recreational, and tutoring activities are discussed in relation to BBBS programs.
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 | 0.014 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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