MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556638538 · doi:10.26522/tl.v2i3.81

Career Counselling at the Middle School Level: A Case Study

2005· article· en· W1556638538 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Harry Legum

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching and Learning · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrop outUnemploymentPsychologyWork (physics)Medical educationPedagogyMedicineEconomic growthDemographic economicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the national standards stressed by The American School Counselor Association (1997) is the academic and career development among all students. In other words, it is essential that students understand the connection between academics to the world of work. Although 18 percent of Canada's high school students drop out of school (Canadian Centre for Adolescent Research, 2000), current data indicate that 9.4 percent of American high school students drop out of school (United States Department of Commerce, 2003). Since the unemployment rate of high school dropouts in Canada is 55 percent (Little, 2003) and 18 percent in the United States (United States Department of Commerce), it is necessary for students, especially at the middle school level, to understand the relevance of learning to their future career choice. These high school dropouts are confronted with barriers preventing them from succeeding in the world of work. Thus, at-risk students must develop skills that will adequately prepare them for career options and make them more desirable to future employers (Legum & Hoare, 2004).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching and LearningSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207