Constructing a Career: An Investigation of the Career Construction Model of Adaptation in Recent Graduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition from university to the workforce can be a daunting experience for many university graduates, due, at least in part, to an increasingly competitive, and often unstable labour market. University students are increasingly challenged to complete traditional classroom learning while also developing vocational identities and the skills needed to adapt to the 21 st century workforce. Career construction theory According to the model, successful career adaptation (adaptive results) is a function of relatively stable individual differences (adaptivity), psychosocial resources used to manage career-related challenges (adaptability resources), and the specific behaviours that people engage in to address occupational challenges (adaptive responses). Using a retrospective recall design, the current study tested some of the key theoretical assumptions of the career construction model of adaptation in the context of the school-to-work transition with a sample of 303 recent university graduates. The results showed that career adaptability resources mediated the relationship between adaptivity (proactive personality, cognitive flexibility) and adapting responses (proactive career behaviour, career construction behaviour). Career adaptability was also positively related to perceived career success and person-job fit perceptions; this positive relationship was partially mediated by proactive career behaviours. Overall, these findings support the career construction model of adaptation and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of career construction theory and the school-to-work transition process.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".