Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This personal reflection on occupational transitions is based on the life stories of two of the interesting people I met while in Chile, one in Santiago and the other in my travels to San Pedro de Atacama and how their stories have aided in strengthening my knowledge of occupational transitions. PARTICIPANTS: Purposeful restructuring of one's life is key to developing identity and meaningful engagement in daily and occupational life. METHODS: Both Mauricio and Francisco share, through their occupational transition self-narratives, how they restructured their lives by finding out who they really were, as well as what was most important to them. RESULTS: I believe that the consistent theme or catalyst of change within these stories is one of being unsatisfied with a current situation and as a result, making a conscious decision to recreate/restructure one's identity and sense of being. CONCLUSIONS: When seeking to both understand and apply a term like occupational transition, it will be important to not preclude the individual human stories, both told and untold, that will enable a more complete and compassionate understanding of occupational transitions for both researchers and clinicians.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".