MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792055213 · doi:10.1080/14767430.2018.1438868

Thinking about careers: reflexivity as bounded by previous, ongoing, and imagined experience

2018· article· en· W2792055213 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Realism · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReflexivityBounded functionSociologyPsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophyMathematicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many social scientific studies have shown the positive effects of self-awareness and reflexivity in shaping individuals’ career paths. However, using life- and work-history interviews conducted with salespersons in Toronto, Canada, I find that high levels of self-awareness – as demonstrated by active deliberation over one’s career – has both positive and negative results in terms of career outcomes. Respondents whose careers initially progressed as they expected tended to benefit from reflexively managing their careers. However, the benefits of reflexivity were mixed for respondents whose careers did not begin as planned. This group of respondents sometimes benefited from thinking about alternatives; but also, sometimes, cast themselves outside of careers that they deemed to be ‘normal’. Observing the way that some respondents formed new career plans based on unmet expectations, and began to pursue those emergent plans, I argue that scholarly uses of reflexivity should incorporate its function as a potential career trajectory anchor.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it