MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108044317 · doi:10.1108/ccm-10-2012-0103

Mentoring relationships among managerial and professional women in Turkey

2014· article· en· W2108044317 on OpenAlexaff
Mustafa Koyuncu, Ronald J. Burke, Nihat Alayoğlu, Jacob Wolpin

Bibliographic record

VenueCross Cultural Management An International Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialOriginalityOddsPsychologyWork (physics)Job satisfactionValue (mathematics)Career developmentSample (material)Medical educationSocial psychologyMedicineLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – Although qualified women are still underrepresented at ranks of senior management in all countries, considerable progress has been made in identifying work experiences associated with career success and advancement. The studies of mentor relationships in North America have shown that women receiving more functions from their mentors reported benefits such as greater job and career satisfaction, and female mentors provided more psychosocial functions than did male mentors. The present study examined antecedents and consequences of mentor relationships in a sample of managerial and professional women working for a large organization in Turkey. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 192 women managers and professionals using anonymously completed questionnaires. Findings – The following results were obtained: having a mentor relationship had little impact on work outcomes, female and male mentors generally provided the same mentor functions, and mentor functions had little impact on work outcomes. Practical implications – Highlights the potential role of both organizational and societal values in mentoring programs. Originality/value – These findings are at odds with previously reported results obtained in Anglo-Saxon countries. Possible explanations for the failure to find previously reported benefits of mentoring are offered.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross Cultural Management An International JournalSame topicMentoring and Academic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207