Evaluation of an Occupational Therapy Mentorship Program
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
BACKGROUND: It was identified that there is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of formal mentorship programs, no evidence supporting mentor groups and little research in mentorship specific to occupational therapy. PURPOSE: The following quantitative study evaluates the mentorship program offered within the occupational therapy curriculum at The University of Western Ontario. METHODS: One hundred and seventy nine surveys were analyzed to evaluate participants' perceptions of the program's strengths, weaknesses, changes needed, effectiveness, and whether it should continue to be offered. RESULTS: In general, mentors and mentees reported that the mentorship program should continue to be offered and that it was effective in developing professionalism. However, the structure of the program, clarification of its requirements, and more support for the mentors were identified as some areas for change. IMPLICATIONS: Results can impact further program development at this university and other occupational therapy programs which may have a similar program or are interested in developing a mentorship 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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