Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article elaborates the emerging career human agency theory and its applicability to career psychology practice. Using Bandura’s human agency theory as a foundation, career human agency theory is a meta-theory that integrates key tenets from major theories in vocational and career psychology. It presents an endeavour of theoretical integration to conceive and understand career issues and vocational behaviours. The article provides a brief overview of career human agency theory, indicating its postmodern constructivist and constructionist worldview in conceptualizing life-career phenomena, while integrating life and career experiences into a dynamic and coherent whole. To this end, the four pillar theoretical principles and constructs of career human agency theory are reviewed, namely, career intentionality, career forethought, career self-reactiveness, and career self-reflectiveness. Furthermore, the article considers and explains the usefulness of the four constructs as they are applied to professional helping and self-helping processes that improve and enhance the vocational wellness of individuals, connecting career human agency theory to practice. In doing so, the article concludes with a case study illustration to demonstrate how these career human agency theory constructs and their related tenets and ideas can inform and guide career development practice and career counselling interventions, utilizing and strengthening agentic functioning in individuals’ worklife wellbeing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".