Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies appear to indicate that Canadians are generally happy with their lives (OECD, 2012) and satisfied at their workplaces (Environics, 2010). In a study undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2012) 78% of respondents said that they were satisfied with life, something the study identifies as a measure of happiness resulting from the presence of positive experiences and feelings, and the absence of negative experiences and feelings. A national study commissioned by the Canadian Education and Research Institute for Counselling (Environics, 2010) found that a representative sample of 1,202 adult Canadians felt that they were somewhat or very satisfied with their jobs and that Canadians tend to like the work they do (86%) and the people they work with (88%). With anecdotal examples of dissatisfaction at work found to be common, these results beg the question, why do such a large number of Canadians say that they are satisfied at work? This paper addresses the nature of work satisfaction and the implications of this concept on education and the work of school counsellors and teachers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".