MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Typologies and precursors of career adaptability patterns among emerging adults: A seven‐year longitudinal study

2014· article· en· W2090072891 on OpenAlexaff
Shmuel Shulman, Kati Vasalampi, Tamuz Barr, Yaara Livne, Jari‐Erik Nurmi, Michael W. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersIsrael Science Foundation
KeywordsAdaptabilityPsychologyLongitudinal studyDevelopmental psychologyCareer developmentSocial psychologyClinical psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined career adaptability in 100 Israeli emerging adults who were followed from ages 22 to 29. Participants were given an in depth interview and were asked to talk about their current work, difficulties they might have had in the past and how they coped with them. In addition they were asked to elaborate on the extent to which their job fits their interests and is meaningful to them. Analyses of interviews yielded three distinctive career adaptability patterns that were associated with different levels of concurrent wellbeing: Integrated, Compromised, and Vague. A lower level of identified motivation measured seven years earlier predicted membership in the Compromised pattern. A higher level of extrinsic motivation combined with decreased parental support predicted membership in the Vague pattern. Findings are discussed within the framework of the occupational adaptations and compromises that young people must make when approaching the age of 30.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207