Beyond Logic and Intuition: Development and Validation of a Career Discernment Scale
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research on career decision-making has focused on two distinct modes of decision-making: logic and intuition. In this study, we extend that two-system model of career decision-making and examine the role of two additional decision-making modalities: advice seeking and spiritual discernment. We conducted two independent studies through which we develop and validate a Career Discernment Scale by examining its dimensions and internal reliability (Study 1), followed by research to establish discriminant and convergent validity (Study 2). Results provide initial support for the dimensionality and reliability of four distinct career decision-making factors, demonstrated by a clear factor structure and internal consistency. In addition, our results show evidence of convergent and discriminant validity through expected correlations across a nomological network of individual differences. Overall, this article highlights the unique role of spirituality and advice seeking in career decision-making with implications for career development and practice.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it