Predictors of mentoring relationship quality: Investigation from the perspectives of youth and parent participants in Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada one‐to‐one mentoring programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study examined predictors of mentoring relationship quality (MRQ) as reported by youth and parents participating in Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) of Canada one-to-one mentoring programs. METHODS: Mentoring program capacity and other external supports, youth personal and environmental risk, youth and parent attitudes and motives, and mentoring relationship processes and attributes were examined as predictors of MRQ at 18 months following youth referral to the program using data from a longitudinal study of the Canadian BBBS mentoring programs. RESULTS: For youth (n = 335), significant predictors of MRQ included: minimal difficulties pairing youth and mentors, perceptions of shared attributes with their mentor, mentor emotional engagement and support, and longer relationships. For parents (n = 356) higher MRQ was correlated with parent report of minimal difficulties pairing youth and mentors, a high-quality relationship with the youth's mentor, and longer relationships. CONCLUSION: Implications for program and policy development are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".