The Influences of Sex, Gender Identity, and Power on Faculty-Graduate Student Relational Mentoring and its Association with Student Psychological Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that university student psychological health problems may be increasing, and graduate students may be at increased risk for problems such as depression relative to the general population.The limited extant research has identified a correlation between relational mentoring characterized by mutual authenticity, engagement, and empowerment, and female undergraduate student psychological health.The current research fills gaps in the mentoring and feminist psychological literatures by examining this correlation in faculty-graduate student mentoring and testing key assumptions of relational-cultural theory, from which the concept of relational mentoring is derived.Relational-cultural theory assumes: 1) relational mentoring is more important to the psychological health of women than men, and 2) women are more likely than men to adopt a relationship style that would foster relational mentoring.This research was also informed by feminist critiques of these assumptions.Consequently, using a survey of 421 graduate students from various disciplines across Canada, Study 1 examined the association between faculty-graduate student relational mentoring and psychological health outcomes.Study 1 further tested the moderating effects of student sex, gender identity (i.e., masculine, feminine traits), and the power dynamics of the individual faculty-student relationships.A significant correlation was observed between relational mentoring and positive psychological health (i.e., decreased depressive symptoms, increased self-esteem and life satisfaction).This association was not moderated by student sex, gender identity, or relationship power dynamics.Using an online, experimental design and a sample of 186 undergraduate students, Study 2 examined the effects of sex, gender identity, and a randomly assigned power condition (i.e., high-power Theoretical Background………………………………………………………... 2 Conceptualizing Faculty-Graduate Student Mentoring…………………….. 2
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".