MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085659852 · doi:10.1308/135576109787909355

Mentoring. A Quality Assurance Tool for Dentists Part 3: Building a Successful Mentoring Relationship

2009· article· en· W2085659852 on OpenAlex
Vernon P Holt, Russ Ladwa

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrimary Dental Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsNorfolk General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatienceHonestyEmpathyPsychologyConstructiveMedical educationQuality (philosophy)GratitudeProcess (computing)Social psychologyPedagogyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contribution that the mentor can make to the mentoring relationship is undoubtedly crucial. It revolves around mentor qualities, including honesty, congruence, self-sufficiency, and patience. Mentor attitudes include unconditional positive regard for the mentee and mentee focus. Mentor behaviours include establishing rapport, demonstrating warmth and empathy, and giving constructive feedback. There are also unhelpful mentor positions, which are to be avoided. However, there are enormous rewards for the mentor. Mentees also make a significant contribution to the successful relationship by being open to the process and ready to engage with their mentor in order to discover their own goals and develop their own resources and career. This will help them to serve their patients better in the years to come and thereby to achieve a greater sense of purpose, satisfaction and reward in their professional lives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it