Career Onion: Peeling off the layers for Occupational Preferences and Career Aspirations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vocational psychology carts away the vocational behavior regarding the occupational preferences of every individual, which commences at the period of adolescence. These occupational or vocational preferences are shaped or crystallized through career guidance and theories, which further help an adolescent to climb the career ladder towards achieving career aspirations and success. This research article, focuses mainly on five theories, self-concept development theory, valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory, theory of work adjustment , tournament theory and Maslow hierarchy of needs theory, which help the adolescents with the occupational preferences, assist in climbing the career ladder from growth stage to retirement stage, ultimately resulting in achieving career aspirations. Furthermore, researchers reveal the differences among these theories highlighting unique features of every theory in predicting occupational or career preferences. Researchers also draw the career onion, where every layer of the career onion depicts that every adolescent peels off each career layer (starting from the growth stage until he eventually peels off the last layer of the retirement age) to achieve career self-actualization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".