The mentoring relationship, professional social workers mentoring university social work students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship experience of mentors and mentees who participated in a formalised mentorship program and to propose ecommendations for improvements to the program. A qualitative approach was under taken with components of grounded theory used as a guiding framework. By using elements of grounded theory, recurring themes could be identified and built upon to achieve saturation. The interviews showed that the experiences of the mentors and mentees involved in this study varied greatly and ranged from abject disappointment to a feeling of being part of a wonderful learning experience. Those who experienced disappointment cited the inability to connect with their counterpart as the primary reason for their negative experience while those whose experience was seen as positive indicated that exchanging ideas and learning about another's culture and ideas were the primary reasons for enjoying their participation in the mentoring relationship. How the development of the relationship was approached and prioritised by the participants and which party took responsibility for the initial development stage of the relationship had a direct effect on how the experience was perceived and experienced. Program recommendations include formal introductions arranged by the mentorship program co-ordinator at the onset; provision of detailed program information regarding the benefits for and expectations of program participants; mentee biographies to provide insight into the mentees needs and situation; provision of a neutral place to meet; and access to information from past mentors and mentees. This study attempts to extend the Canadian knowledge base.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".