MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987274566 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717

Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates.

2006· article· en· W1987274566 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscientiousnessPsychologyPersonalityJob attitudeJob performanceSocial psychologyJob analysisApplied psychologyGraduation (instrument)Big Five personality traitsPersonnel selectionJob designJob satisfactionJob characteristic theoryExtraversion and introversionManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current article tests a model of proactive personality and job search success with a sample of 180 graduating college students. Using structural equation modeling, the authors tested a theoretical model that specified the relations among proactive personality, job search self-efficacy, job search behaviors, job search effort, and job search outcomes. Job seekers were surveyed at 2 separate points in time, once 3-4 months prior to graduation and once 2-3 months following graduation. The results suggest that proactive personality (a) significantly influenced the success of college graduates' job search, (b) was partially mediated through job search self-efficacy and job search behavior, and (c) was independent of self-esteem and conscientiousness. The findings are discussed in terms of their general implications for understanding the nature of the process through which distal personality factors, such as proactive personality, affect the nature and success of an individual's job search.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.288 · 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