Work values during the transition to adulthood and mid-life satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This 25-year longitudinal study of a sample of Canadian high school seniors ( N = 373) examined pathways from work values at age 18 to mid-life (age 43) career satisfaction and life satisfaction through several possible mediators: age 25 and 32 work values, months of postsecondary education (PSE) by age 25, and age 43 work rewards. Gender and parents’ PSE were also examined as influences on pathways to mid-life satisfaction. Structural equation modeling found support for one pathway beginning with intrinsic work values in high school (age 18 intrinsic work values→age 25 intrinsic work values→age 32 intrinsic work values→age 43 intrinsic work rewards→age 43 career and life satisfaction). Another pathway began with parents’ PSE (parents’ PSE→participants’ age 25 PSE→age 43 intrinsic work rewards→age 43 career and life satisfaction). Extrinsic work values from age 18 to 32 were not related to age 43 work rewards or career and life satisfaction. These findings indicate that adolescent work values matter for important mid-life outcomes, intrinsic work values are stronger predictors of adaptive outcomes than are extrinsic work values, and PSE plays a vital cross-generational role in shaping mid-life satisfaction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".