Hope-Centred Interventions with Unemployed Clients
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 investigates the effectiveness of hope-based interventions (Niles, Amundson, & Neault, 2011) used with clients in employment counselling centers who were experiencing low hope. Specifically, five hope-centred interventions were delivered in face-to-face (F2F; n = 27) and online formats (n = 25). All participants completed the Hope-Centred Career Inventory (HCCI; Niles, Yoon, & Amundson, 2011), the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwartzer & Jerusalem, 1995), the Vocational Identity Scale (VIS; Holland, Daiger, & Power, 1980), and the Career Engagement Scale (CES; Hirschi, Freund, & Herrmann, 2014) at the start and at the conclusion of the study. The Enhanced Critical Incident Technique (ECIT; Butterfield, Borgen, Maglio, & Amundson, 2009) was used to identify helpful and hindering factors experienced by the participants as well as factors to consider when delivering the study interventions in the future. Finally, a focus group was used to explore the study participants’ perspectives of the career development counsellors who participated in delivering the study. Results indicate that increasing hope competencies can increase an overall sense of hope and that this increase has a direct and measurable effect on how individuals perceive their career situation. The F2F and online groups experienced similar outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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