Multiple Perspectives to Successful Employment Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past decade has witnessed important socio-economic/political changes with implications for securing employment for a variety of groups of individuals. Of particular interest to this symposium is the increased investments in higher education across many developed countries yet insufficient supply of high skilled jobs meant that some highly skilled entrants into the labour market experience difficulties in securing their first job (McKee–Ryan & Harvey, 2011; Okay-Somerville & Scholarios, 2014). Moreover, the 2008 economic recession brought the prospect of long-term unemployment for many into limelight (Noordzij, Van Hooft, Van Mierlo, van Dam, & Born, 2013; Wanberg, 2012), particularly for the migrant workers who often find it difficult to secure employment commensurate with their knowledge, skills and abilities in the host country (Zikic, Bonache & Cerdin, 2013). It is beyond the remit of this symposium to tackle each of these major socio-economic/political changes as experienced by job seekers. However, one common denominator of this unprecedented change is an ever-increasing uncertainty and therefore concern for securing employment by different groups of workers in society. Contemporary careers research calls for more emphasis on understanding the various boundaries that impact employment outcomes and how individuals may be able to negotiate these (Inkson, Gunz, Ganesh and Roper, 2012; Rodrigues, Guest, & Budjanovcanin, 2015). This requires a better understanding of (i) the structural barriers to employment; (ii) individual experience of and strategies for coping with these barriers; and (iii) the mechanisms through which interventions may improve employment outcomes. Bringing studies based on new entrant, unemployed and immigrant samples from the UK, the Netherlands and Canada, the proposed symposium aims to provide a comprehensive picture of successful employment outcomes, which encapsulates consideration of the role of structure and agency, and interventions that bring the two together. In doing so, the symposium is expected to contribute to the multidisciplinary perspectives to job search and employability.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".