Career Self-Management in Small- and Medium-sized Businesses: Strengths and Limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using an evaluation framework (Canadian Research Working Group on Evidence-based Practice in Career Development, CRWG, 2007), this study has developed a self-guided career management process. Goyer has tested the process and evaluated its effectiveness among 56 workers employed in businesses. The evaluation assessed four variables: self-efficacy (Michaud, Savard, Leblanc, & Paquette, 2010), quality of career maintenance management (Lamarche, Limoges, Guedon, & Caron, 2006), self-esteem (Lecompte, Corbiere, & Laisne, 2006), and career self-management (CRWG, 2009). Effective strategies have emerged from a follow-up interview and from the results of the study. The effects of the process on its users is reviewed followed by critical reflection on the strengths and limitations of providing this type of guidance process in business (Goyer, Hiebert, Borgen, & Savard, 2010).
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 | 0.067 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".