Exploring the peer mentorship experiences of adults with spinal cord injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the peer mentorship experiences of adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) through a self-determination theory (SDT) lens. Research Method/Design: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 adults with SCI who received mentorship (i.e., mentees) from fellow adults with SCI (i.e., mentors) as part of an existing provincial peer mentorship program. There were two analyses conducted in this study. The first was deductive, which involved organizing relevant data as per the three basic psychological needs of self-determination theory (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness). The second analysis was inductive and focused on the participants' descriptions of their experiences. RESULTS: For the SDT analysis, and concerning autonomy, mentees expressed they were able to make their own decisions and their mentors' personalized their sessions. Specific to relatedness, the mentees discussed that their mentors cared and empathized with them, which helped them connect with their mentor. In terms of competence, mentees explained that their mentors provided verbal encouragement and helped them realize they were capable of successfully completing tasks. Some mentees also highlighted how the mentors did not listen to their needs, indicating need thwarting behaviors. For the inductive analysis, mentees expressed the importance of their SCI community organization, the impact of mentoring on their families, and the positive outcomes they associated with peer mentorship, such as participation in daily and social activities. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: The present findings extend our understanding of SCI peer mentorship from the perspective of the mentee and particularly from an SDT angle. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".