Career Information Practices of Guidance Practitioners
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
Although career development theories underline the central role of information in career choice and studies show that guidance practitioners are among the main information sources of people making career choices, the actual information practices of these practitioners in their career interventions remain fragmented. Moreover, the studies on the theme of career choice associating information, information sources and information practices (whether it is among guidance practitioners or individuals in career choice) offer little conceptualization on these notions. In order to fill this gap, an online survey of 330 guidance practitioners in Quebec was conducted to document specifically their career information practices (information sources consulted and categories of career information sought). Statistical analysis show that the main career information sought relates to central elements of career choice (training programs and occupations) and the main information sources consulted are non-human and institutional. In addition, some contextual elements are associated with seeking and selecting certain categories of information and sources. The discussion highlights the importance of digital sources in the information practices of these practitioners, the association between the populations served and the choice of information sources and categories of career information and the role of co-workers as information support on career and beyond.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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