MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166693958 · doi:10.1177/08948453211022845

Jobs, Careers, and Callings: Exploring Work Orientation at Mid-Career

2021· article· en· W3166693958 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

VenueJournal of Career Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyJob satisfactionCentralityDiscriminant function analysisWork (physics)Function (biology)Career developmentWork engagementOrientation (vector space)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mid-career is a time when work orientation (i.e., viewing ones’ work as a job, a career, or a calling) comes into sharper focus. Using Wrzeniewski et al.’s tripartite model, we conducted a discriminant function analysis to determine the combination of variables that best discriminates among people who are aligned with a job, a career, or a calling orientation in a sample of 251 full-time, North American mid-career employees. Compared to those who approach work as a job, those with a calling orientation were more engaged in work. The career-oriented stood apart from the others as a function of shorter job tenure, greater turnover intentions, work engagement, career satisfaction, and a tendency to engage in career self-comparisons. Work-orientation groups did not differ significantly in terms of family centrality, work–life balance, life satisfaction, or well-being. The results suggest that the work orientations represent distinct and equally valid ways to approach work.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.144 · 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