Evaluation of the mentor–mentee relationship in an occupational therapy mentorship programme
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".