MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183713107 · doi:10.82396/cjcd.v13i1.3071

Restoring Hope: Responding to Career Concerns of Immigrant Clients

2021· article· en· W2183713107 on OpenAlexaff
Tatjana Elez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis (Memorial University of Newfoundland) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationGovernment (linguistics)WorkforcePsychological interventionCareer counselingConceptual frameworkPublic relationsPopulationPsychologySocial psychologySociologyApplied psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immigrants, whose career path is often different from the one described in traditional career theory, compose a large portion of the work force. As a result, a modified career theory and career counseling strategies that respond to this population’s specific circumstances are needed. In this paper, issues in immigrant career transition are described, including barriers that interfere with the transition process and factors that contribute to its success. Immigrants face many intra-individual, relational, and contextual level barriers along with challenges of cultural adaptation. Successful transition relies on factors within the individual, such as adaptability and hardiness, and also on relational and systemic supports, such as family, language programs, and government sponsored organizations. Suggestions for counselling practice are offered, derived from a multileveled interactive conceptual framework. Interventions tailored to address individual, relational and contextual levels are presented, with an emphasis on social justice interventions that are seldom discussed in psychological literature. The author presents a part of her own experience to illustrate the issues.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis (Memorial University of Newfoundland)Same topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207