Mentoring within the Veterinary Medical Profession: Veterinarians’ Experiences as Protégés in Mentoring Relationships
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
Veterinary medicine professionals have recognized the importance of enhancing mentoring of students, as recruitment and retention of students have become prominent concerns. The purpose of the present study was to examine the form and degree of mentoring experienced by practicing veterinarians, as well as to seek to understand the factors that influence effective mentoring relationships. Data concerning their own experiences with mentoring relationships were gathered from practicing veterinarians. Results suggest that most practicing veterinarians had mentors and that the most frequent and effective mentors were initial employers, followed by teachers and advisors. Behaviors aimed at career development and socio-emotional support correlated highly with the perceived effectiveness of the relationship. Perceived similarity between the protege and the mentor also predicted effectiveness. These results are discussed as they relate to veterinary education.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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