MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113850465 · doi:10.5604/01.3001.0014.6227

Hope-Action Theory and Practice

2020· article· en· W3113850465 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYPsychological interventionAction researchSet (abstract data type)Action (physics)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)Process (computing)Computer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hope-Action Theory presents a theoretical structure that holds Hope as the center point of career development. Associated with hope are competencies such as self-reflection, self-clarity, visioning, goal setting and planning, implementation, and adapting. There also are environmental factors that influence the entire career development process. In order to assess the practical utility of Hope-Action Theory a series of intervention research studies were initiated in different contexts. This article reviews the results from these studies. The first one applied specific active interventions with a group of internationally trained health professionals. The second study involved unemployed clients using a series of face-to-face and online interventions. The third group focused on the needs of refugees and was set up with a control and experimental groups using a two week group delivery approach. Positive results from all of these studies supports the utility of Hope-Action Theory and the set of active interventions that were used in this research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.376 · 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