Mentors' and mentees' intellectual-partnership through the lens of the Transformative Learning Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we report reflections about the scholarly mentoring experiences of undergraduate nursing students (mentees) and faculty members (mentors) involved in an intellectual partnership at a Canadian university. The paper specifically recounts the impacts of the transformative process experienced by 18 mentees and three mentors, based on their in-depth written critical reflections. In this collaborative initiative, the constructivist framework of Shor and Freire, and Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory, served as foundations for all interactions between mentees and mentors, and guided the analysis and interpretation of their written self-reflections. Mentees and mentors were motivated by complementary goals for the intellectual relationships. Their combined contexts, self-reflective, critical dialogue, shared assumptions and ideas worked to ignite a critical awareness of their potential and self in their professional world. Sharing new ways of thinking and points of view stimulated their transformation on various levels -emotional, cognitive, and spiritual.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".