Job Seekers’ Self-Directed Learning Activities Explained Through the Lens of Regulatory Focus
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
This study aimed to understand the role of regulatory focus for influencing self-directed learning activities during a job search. The authors surveyed 185 job-searching university students at two time points to explore the conditions under which regulatory focus (promotion and prevention foci) impacts self-directed learning activities and the number of employment interviews secured. Both promotion and prevention foci showed significant relationships with self-directed learning activities and number of interviews, and positive and negative affect partially mediated these relationships. The relationships between both regulatory focus strategies and self-directed learning were also contingent on self-efficacy. More specifically, prevention focus and self-directed learning showed a positive relationship for job seekers with high levels of self-efficacy but a negative one for job seekers with low levels of self-efficacy. This research extends the understanding of the role of regulatory focus in the context of self-directed learning during a job search. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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