Junior High Career Planning: What Students Want
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research used the Comprehensive Career Needs Survey to assess the career coun-selling needs of 3,562 junior high students in Southern Alberta. This article examines junior high students ’ responses regarding their perceptions of (a) the relevance of career planning, (b) who they would approach for help with career planning, and (c) what help they would like during the career planning process. Results indicate career plan-ning is important to junior high students; they are most likely to rely on parents and friends rather than teachers or counsellors for help with career planning; and they would like help with career decision-making, obtaining relevant information and support, and choosing appropriate courses. Implications for teachers, school counsellors, parents, and community services are discussed. Cette étude s’appuie sur « Comprehensive Career Needs Survey » [Enquête exhaustive sur les besoins en matière de carrière] (Magnusson et Bernes, 2002) afin d’évaluer les besoins en orientation professionnelle chez 3562 élèves du premier cycle de l’enseigne-ment secondaire au sud de l’Alberta. Cet article analyse les réponses fournies par les élèves concernant leurs perceptions (a) de la pertinence de la planification de carrière,
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".