MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122937285 · doi:10.1177/103841621202100205

Career Counselling New and Professional Immigrants: Theories into Practice

2012· article· en· W2122937285 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tara Kennedy, Charles P. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Career Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderemploymentImmigrationCareer developmentCareer counselingProfessional developmentSociologyIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)PedagogyPublic relationsUnemploymentPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New and professional immigrants encounter extreme hardships and difficulties in their career experience after arriving in Canada. In addition to underemployment or unemployment concerns, new and professional immigrants endure many cross-cultural barriers. This article attempts to examine the application of career development theories in the context of career development and counselling for new and professional immigrants. It begins with a discussion of some of the barriers that affect new and professional immigrants' career development. Subsequently, it reviews some of the key facets of social cognitive career theory, as well a narrative career counselling approach, and how they specifically relate to new and professional immigrants' career development. The article concludes with intervention strategies, implications and support strategies aimed at dealing with the career development and career counselling needs of new and professional immigrants in Canada. The problems, concepts and solutions will also apply in other settings.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.022
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Career DevelopmentSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207