MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1567910789

Contextual Action Theory in Career Counselling: Some Misunderstood Issues

2002· article· en· W1567910789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ladislav Valach

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Action theory (sociology)PsychologyEpistemologyEngineering ethicsPsychotherapistEngineeringPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current discussion of action theory is premised on the fact that many counselors may avoid action approaches because of previous misunderstandings. Article addresses 12 misunderstandings. Overall, action theory is presented as highly suitable for understanding human behavior and for counseling as it is based on a wide spectrum of research as well as using a language close to human experience.

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)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0080.083
Scholarly communication0.0160.032
Open science0.0120.010
Research integrity0.0190.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207