Antecedents of mentors’ interpersonal behaviors at work: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Building on the self‐determination theory and the work of Pelletier and their colleagues, we conducted a study to examine the antecedents of mentors’ interpersonal behaviors. The purpose of this study was to determine how influence from above (administrative, practice, and colleagues’ pressures) and influence from below (perception of mentees’ level of self‐determined motivation) were related to the mentors’ motivations for their work and the mentoring relationship, and how the mentors’ motivations were related to their interpersonal behaviors. In the present study (N = 600), the results of a cross‐sectional design showed that mentors who perceived greater influence from above and lower influence from below were more non‐self‐determined toward their work and the mentoring relationship. In turn, the more non‐self‐determined they were, the more they were acting in a controlling manner with their mentees. Overall, our findings supported the independent and complementary role of influences from above and from below on mentors’ motivations and interpersonal behaviors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".