Examining the Career Engagement of Canadian Career Development Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to examine the career engagement of Canadian Career Development Practitioners (CDPs), a group of professionals tasked with helping Canadians with career and employment-related concerns. Previous studies with this participant sample have not focused on engagement, which is considered to be an important metric for worker satisfaction and productivity. As a result, this study established an important foundation for ongoing work. A mixed-method approach, using the newly developed quantitative measure of career engagement supported by some qualitative questions, was used for the study. Findings indicate that, overall, Canadian CDPs are engaged with their careers; however, the sector’s youngest and newest as well as oldest and most senior workers are least likely to be engaged. Although this study produced meaningful results, more research is needed. A larger sample size, with better geographical representation would help confirm workers most at risk for lower engagement. In addition, it is likely important to identify whether CDPs with lower engagement levels are at risk of providing a poorer quality of service to clients and, perhaps, subsequently impacting a client’s ability to be successful.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".