Advancing Gerontology through Exceptional Scholarship (AGES): a Mentorship Initiative for Early Career Faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mentorship is critical to supporting professional development and growth of new and emerging faculty members. Working with the Gerontological Society of America (GSA), we created the Advancing Gerontology through Exceptional Scholarship (AGES) Initiative as a mentorship model to promote productivity and peer support for new and early career faculty members. In this commentary, we highlight the AGES Program as a prototype to facilitate peer support, collective learning, and co-authorship opportunities to advance new and early career faculty members, especially in the field of aging. Moreover, we identify four crucial strategies that cultivated and refined our AGES Program including: i) ensuring flexibility to address mentee needs; ii) establishing check-ins and accountability to enhance productivity; iii) fostering peer support and collective learning; and iv) delivering motivational and educational activities. Drawing on our experience with the AGES Program, this commentary provides recommendations to support other groups looking to develop high-quality mentorship programs to support new and early career faculty members in academia.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".