The role and place of mentorship for young people with blindness and low vision in educational contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to understand the role and value of mentorship for young people with blindness and low vision (BLV) through their education and work journey and to provide a conceptual framework for developing mentoring opportunities for young people with BLV. Design/methodology/approach Experiences of formal and informal mentorship were gathered within two distinct groups: adolescents with BLV in Australia and young adults with BLV in Canada. Qualitative data were collected from semi-structured individualized interviews regarding the experiences, understanding, and valuing of mentorship within these groups. Findings Results indicate the importance of informal role models and formal mentors within the lives of participants and how these become more refined and specific over time. Australian students valued role models as examples of success and inspiration for their own goals. Canadian mentees desired mentors as examples of personal lived experiences and providers of career-specific advice. Originality/value The study is original in its focus on the role of mentors for young people with blindness or low vision.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".