How is the internship going anyways? An action research approach to understanding the triad relationship between interns, mentors, and field advisors
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
Abstract This article describes a research project that looks at the relationship between mentors, interns, and field advisors on a theological internship programme by way of the theory and practice relationship as it relates to the university and field context. The work of Hans Georg Gadamer is used as a framework for understanding the interviews using action research to examine and improve the researcher's own practices in the mentor and intern relationship. Three themes emerged: emotional uncertainty of mentors and interns as it is connected with the field advisor; the role of the field advisor as reflective friend; and the field advisor as insider/outsider role. The article concludes with recommendations for field advising and the curriculum. Keywords: action researchinternshippracticumtheological education Notes 1. As part of the planning phase of the action research process and reconnaissance, I visited a number of institutions that had internship and practicum programmes. I especially want to thank Dr David Friesen, Faculty of Education, University of Regina, for allowing me to attend the internship seminar, participate in a number of field advising visits between supervising teachers and interns, and observe classroom teaching and teaching laboratories.
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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