MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416689541 · doi:10.1108/978-1-62396-853-3

Uncovering the Cultural Dynamics in Mentoring Programs and Relationships

2014· book· en· W4416689541 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Resource (disambiguation)Ideal (ethics)Value (mathematics)Order (exchange)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although cultural issues have a powerful influence on the failure and success of mentoring programs and relationships, there is scant research on this area and little in the way of guidelines that practitioners can use to help assure mentoring success. This book seeks to expand our knowledge and understanding of this topic and to foster the use of this information to enhance practice and research. The book is unique in a number of ways and will be an important resource for all those engaged in mentoring endeavors and for those conducting research in this area. First, it presents research findings on the cultural impact of mentoring at the individual relational level, at the organizational level, and within the structures of the society. Secondly, the chapters describe mentoring from an international perspective including programs from Africa, Australia, Canada, Finland, India, Ireland, Korea, Scotland, Sweden and the United States. Third, the book is research based and yet, can be easily applied to practice. Chapters provide information on lessons learned and also include reflective questions to enable the reader to delve more deeply into the constructs and findings in order to apply them to their own practice and research. This makes the book an ideal resource for training mentors and mentees, for designing mentoring programs, for teaching about mentoring, and for establishing and maintaining mentoring relationships. It also will be of value to those who are engaged in conducting research on how to create and maintain successful mentoring relationships and programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMentoring and Academic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207