The psychometric relationship between career thinking and salutogenic functioning amongst unemployed adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orientation: Corporate survival mechanisms, like mergers, downsizing, restructuring and outsourcing, contribute to unemployment levels amongst adults. Psychological maturity seems to influence the quality of the career decisions that people make in these difficult circumstances. However, we do not know what their behavioural strengths are.Research objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the psychometric relationship between career thinking (negative and positive career thoughts) and salutogenic functioning (locus of control and sense of coherence) amongst unemployed adults.Motivation for study: Career decision research has consistently surveyed students to understand career indecision. Adults are not a homogenous group. Therefore, this trend may not reflect throughout the larger adult population. For this reason, the researchers conducted exploratory research into the nature of career indecision amongst non-student adults.Research design, approach and method: The researchers used a quantitative design that included a four-instrument survey on a purposive sample of 225 Canadian unemployed and non-student adults who had not decided on a career. They calculated correlations and regressions.Main findings: The researchers reported significant relationships between the four constructs. They found that a sense of coherence predicted career thinking.Contribution/value-add: A sense of coherence, which includes comprehension, meaningfulness and manageability, acts as a facilitator of effective career thinking.Practical/managerial implications: During career assessment and guidance, the role of sense of coherence as a strength factor will indicate the person’s readiness to make important career decisions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".