The Relationship Between Vocational Self-Concept Crystallization, Ego-Identity Status, and Occupational Indecision, as Mediated by Rational or Experiential Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cognitive information processing model provides a useful way of looking at career decision-making but lacks a body of empirical evidence to support the specific processes that make possible the effective use of information about self and the world of work. The research described here sought to identify the role of an experiential or rational thinking style in moderating the development of vocational self-concepts and a vocational identity. As suggested by the literature, crystallized vocational self-concepts and identity achievement were positively correlated with decreased career indecision. A significant positive correlation was found for both rational and experiential thinking and vocational self-concept crystallization. Moderate but significant negative correlations were found for rational and experiential thinking and career indecision. The results suggest that both thinking styles have an impact on the development of vocational self-concepts and vocational identity and that they have a mediating effect on the relationship between vocational self-concept development and career indecision.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".