How to set-up a long-distance mentoring program: a framework and case description of mentorship in HIV clinical trials
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
Mentoring plays an important role in learning and career development. Mentored researchers are more productive and more likely to publish their work. However, mentorship programs are not universally used in most settings or disciplines. Furthermore, successful and mutually beneficial mentoring relationships are not always easy to arrange. Long-distance mentoring relationships are even more difficult to handle and may break down for a wide variety of reasons. Drawing from our experiences with the first Canadian Institutes of Health Research - Canadian HIV Trials Network international postdoctoral fellowship program, we describe the roles of the context, the key mentor and the mentee attributes; goals and expectations; environments, local support, a communication plan, funding, face-to-face contact, multidisciplinary collaboration, co-mentoring, and evaluation as they apply to the successful implementation of a long-distance 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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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