The Mediating Role of a Good Match in Achieving Mentorship Objectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research uses the theory of planned behavior to investigate the mediating role of a good match between mentor and mentor in achievement of mentorship program objectives. In addition, it investigates the role of the mentee's perception of the mentor's character when determining good role models. Even though mentorship programs are designed to fulfill their designated objectives, the extent that the objectives are achieved is often not fully known or not approached through a theoretical lens. This research offers a contribution to the mentorship research by using a theoretical model to determine methodically which inputs lead to which outcomes. The (name withheld) Mentorship Program offered under the Canadian Centre for Advanced Leadership (CCAL) is the setting for this research. Data were collected primarily through a questionnaire but focus groups aided in developing the items and interpreting the findings to ensure validity and reliability. We found that the model of the theory of planned behavior, adapted to meet the mentorship program, was useful in predicting a good match and thus meeting mentee’s expectations and fulfilling mentorship objectives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".