Transformational mentoring involving adults with a spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is estimated that there are 86,000 individuals living with spinal cord injury (SCI) in Canada (Farry & Baxter, 2010). The provincial affiliates of Spinal Cord Injury Canada provide peer mentorship programming for individuals living with spinal cord injury, matching newly injured individuals with others living with SCI. These mentorship programs are designed to help newly injured individuals successfully overcome new challenges related to SCI, including being physically active. Drawing from transformational leadership theory (Bass & Riggio, 2006), the purpose of this study was to examine mentees’ perceptions of transformational mentoring within two provincial (Ontario, British Columbia) spinal cord injury peer mentoring programs, and the effects of these behaviours on mentees’ psychological states and engagement. Semi-structured interviews with 15 individuals with SCI examined perceptions of their peer mentors’ behaviours, and the effects of these behaviours on mentees. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subject to conventional content analysis, in which a combination of deductive and inductive analytic procedures were used to organize the data into themes related to the behaviours utilized by mentors, as well as themes related to the reported psychological and behavioural responses of mentees. Findings revealed that behaviors displayed by peer mentors can be understood within a transformational leadership framework, as all four dimensions of transformational leadership were implicated, to some extent, in the psychological or behavioural functioning of mentees. Participants who perceived their mentors to utilize transformational leadership behaviors reported increases in motivation, hope, comfort/acceptance, self-efficacy, overall well-being/happiness, relatedness, redefining their limitations, and greater engagement in health enhancing behaviours (e.g., physical activity). Implications for the application of transformational mentoring to motivate individuals with SCI to engage in physical activity and other health promoting behaviours are considered.Acknowledgments: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".