Facing the dropout crisis among PhD candidates: the role of supervisor support in emotional well-being and intended doctoral persistence among men and women
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of PhD candidates who experience psychological problems has risen significantly over the past few years. Poor mental health can have numerous negative consequences for PhD candidates and their supervisors, as it may adversely affect their quality of life, attrition, and academic productivity. Despite these well-documented challenges, few studies have looked at how the supervisor – supervisee relationship can influence the emotional well-being of male and female doctoral candidates. The current work examined the role of the supervisor’s support in emotions and intended doctoral persistence among men (n = 411) and women (n = 514), in all disciplines at two large universities in Belgium. Results indicate that emotional well-being was low for all doctoral candidates but women experienced even more negative emotions (anxiety, stress, discouragement, demoralization, sadness and depression) and fewer positive emotions (confidence, optimism, happiness, fulfillment, satisfaction and content) than men. Interestingly, we also found that perceived structure and autonomy, two dimensions of supervisor support, have a positive effect on emotional well-being and intention of pursuing a PhD trajectory for both men and women. This paper makes a contribution to the higher education and research supervision literature by offering new directions for research and by providing guidelines for the training of research supervisors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it