Bibliographic record
Abstract
A principal purpose in vocational (i.e. educational and occupational) counselling is to guide counsellees directly or indirectly into jobs in which they will be relatively satisfied and successful. This thesis investigated the nature of one of the determinants of vocational adjustment, namely vocational interest. Vocational interests can be separated into two basic forms: (1) predicated or affirmed interests, and (2) inventoried or tested interests. In this thesis the relationship between predicated and inventoried interests was studied, not by comparing their powers to predict vocational satisfaction and success, but by examining personality factors apparently related to discrepancies between predicated and inventoried interests in individuals. The question considered was, what causes a person to be dissonant, to have a discrepancy, in his predicated and inventoried interests? Specifically, is prestige need positively related to such dissonance? Previous studies have shown that 'naivete and stereotypy', one's being naive about occupational activities and stereotyping occupational positions, and ‘social pressure' are associated with vocational interest dissonance. Prestige need, however, appears without empirical support as a correlate of discrepancy between predicated and inventoried interests. The present study sought to provide such support. A Job Choice Inventory was constructed for measuring prestige need. Form D of the WIPCO Vocational Interest Profile was used for measuring inventoried interest, and an Occupational Preferences Blank was constructed for measuring predicated interest. The discrepancy between these interests was used as a measure of vocational interest dissonance. Although not statistically significant, vocational interest dissonance showed some curvi-linear relationship to prestige need. That is, interest dissonance increased somewhat towards the high and the low extremities of prestige need. Sex evidently did not differentiate this relationship.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".