MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036784722 · doi:10.1177/103841620401300204

Positive Compromise: A New Perpective for Career Psychology

2004· article· en· W2036784722 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Career Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Psychological Association
KeywordsCompromisePsychologyConstruct (python library)Function (biology)Career developmentPerspective (graphical)Meaning (existential)Career counselingProcess (computing)Social psychologyPublic relationsEngineering ethicsSociologyApplied psychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringPsychotherapistSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main challenges in the current world of work is the constant change and adjustment individuals encounter. To deal with such uncertainty, a person often has to give up something less feasible and achievable in order to accomplish career goals and projects that are more practical and obtainable. As a result, compromise becomes an inevitable vital construct in a person's career. This article explores the importance of maintaining an open stance in your work life—paying particular attention to the role of compromise in the career development process. It reviews the meaning of compromise in the current career theories; expands on the existing conceptualisation of compromise; and proposes a new perspective—positive compromise—to redefine the role and function of compromise in vocational and career psychology. Following this new conceptual framework, implications for career development intervention and career counselling are illustrated.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.248 · 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