Evaluation of the mentor–mentee relationship in an occupational therapy mentorship programme
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
Mentor group relationships in an occupational therapy university curriculum were investigated. In phase I, mentors (n = 23) and mentees (n = 124) were surveyed over a four year period. In phase II, 14 mentees from the same time period were surveyed after graduation. It was found that mentors and mentees surveyed agreed that their mentor group leader displayed more mentoring (i.e. ongoing partnership for guidance and support) than coaching (i.e. short-term relationship for providing feedback on areas requiring change) characteristics, and most agreed that, post-graduation, their mentor group leader had been a mentor to them. Mentees viewed their mentors predominantly as a role model or counsellor and emphasized knowledge, experience, guidance, and support as desirable attributes of a mentor. Contact with mentors for resources, support, or job-related purposes continued after graduation for more than half of mentees. Some mentees reported that peer mentoring had also occurred. Limitations of the study include the small sample size in Phase II and some aspects of survey design. Future areas of research identified include studying the development of the relationship over time (i.e. pre-, mid-way, and post-programme), comparing relationships between mentors and mentees who have similar versus dissimilar expectations for the programme, further examining peer mentoring or group relationships, and continuing post-graduation surveys with a larger sample size for increased reliability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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