MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086368125 · doi:10.1177/0894845320957737

Workplace Mentorship: A Critical Review

2020· review· en· W3086368125 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

VenueJournal of Career Development · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipOrganizational justicePsychologyPublic relationsWorkplace learningCareer developmentMedical educationSocial psychologyMedicinePolitical scienceWork (physics)EngineeringOrganizational commitment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mentoring is a popular workplace practice, bolstered by a substantial body of literature that has underscored its positive outcomes for protégés and organizations. Less pronounced are the potential risks and costs associated with workplace mentorship. In this article, we consolidate what is known about workplace mentorship and draw on organizational justice research, self-determination theory, and findings related to indirect exposure to expand on the potentially darker side of workplace mentorship. Our comprehensive review suggests that workplace mentorship appears to have positive consequences in particular circumstances for particular groups of employees, but the conclusiveness of its positive effects is limited by significant gaps in the research. To assist in determining if the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks and costs, we offer a list of considerations for individual employees who are considering engaging in a mentoring relationship and for those implementing workplace mentoring 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.259 · 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