MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104137131 · doi:10.1177/0894845310384593

Using the Self-Directed Search in Research

2011· article· en· W2104137131 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Career Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConstruct (python library)Item response theoryConfirmatory factor analysisPsychometricsConstruct validityTest validitySocial psychologyItem analysisDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsStructural equation modelingComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using Item Response Theory (IRT) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), the goal of this study was to select a reduced pool of items from the French Canadian version of the Self-Directed Search—Activities Section ( Holland, Fritzsche, & Powell, 1994 ). Two studies were conducted. Results of Study 1, involving 727 French Canadian students, showed that the psychometric qualities of the 66-item French Canadian version are equivalent to those of the original English version. Based on IRT and factor loadings derived from a CFA, 24 items were selected from the original 66 items. In Study 2 ( n = 339 French Canadian young adults), we tested and obtained support for the construct validity of the 24 selected items using CFA and correlational analyses among interests’ dimensions. We concluded that the selected pool of items accurately captured Holland’s theoretical framework and showed adequate psychometrics qualities and construct validity.

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.942
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.353 · 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