No need to grow my resumé? Mentorship and the intersection of learning between emerging and established leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active ongoing learning is a foundational expectation of every healthcare leader whether at the beginning or end of their career. In order for leaders to be nimble and responsive to the ongoing changes in the healthcare environment, they must actively engage in a multiplicity of learning activities. One way of ensuring diversity of learning is for emerging and established leaders to learn together through formal or informal mentoring. This article will explore that intersection and the value add of a reciprocal mentoring relationship where mentor and mentee roles become blurred and joint learning becomes the goal. Capabilities from the LEADS in a Caring Environment framework will be drawn upon, and a challenge is suggested for experienced leaders to go beyond resumé building and invest in emerging leaders, as ultimately it is an investment in their own learning and the future.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".