MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088056330 · doi:10.5539/ies.v13n10p113

Investigation of the Relationship Between Adolescents’ Career Indecision, and Social Support Perception and Basic Psychological Needs

2020· article· en· W3088056330 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Umay Bilge Baltacı, Kemal Öztemel, Zeliha Traş

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDescriptive statisticsPersonalityTest (biology)PerceptionSocial supportAutonomySocial psychologyScale (ratio)Regression analysisBig Five personality traitsDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between high school students’ emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties (EPCD), perception of social support and basic psychological needs. The predictive effect of social support perception and basic psychological needs on EPCD will also be examined. In addition, it has been examined whether emotional and personality-related career decision-making difficulties differ according to some demographic variables. In this research, survey model was used. For collecting data, Personal information form; the EPCD-short form; New Psychological Needs Assessment Scale, were used. The data obtained in this research were analyzed using SPSS (20). In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics, independent groups t-test, ANOVA test, and correlation and regression analysis technique were used. In addition, a significant correlation was found between the mean scores of the students on the career difficulties, and the perceived social support, and the autonomy and the achievement. The findings were discussed as a part of the relevant literature and suggestions based on the findings were included.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.093 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207