MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007114111 · doi:10.1080/1360144x.2020.1731815

Mentoring faculty online: a literature review and recommendations for web-based programs

2020· review· en· W3007114111 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal for Academic Development · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipFaculty developmentModalitiesReflection (computer programming)Medical educationProfessional developmentKey (lock)Critical reflectionHigher educationComputer sciencePedagogyPsychologyEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineeringMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching-focused faculty mentorship programs can expose instructors to new ideas, as well as opportunities for critical self-reflection, professional growth, and network building. In this literature review, we synthesize the research on teaching-focused faculty mentorship programs that have been facilitated at institutions of higher education through online or blended modalities. We identify key trends in the reported outcomes of these programs, as well as aspects of program design and implementation that might enable or impede program success. Finally, we provide eight recommendations to help guide the implementation of online and blended faculty mentorship programs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it