Priming Jobs as Skill Development Opportunities and Responses to Job Postings
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
Many inexperienced job seekers adopt a focused job search strategy in which they disregard job postings that seem unrelated to their interests. Yet, many of the jobs that they disregard during their job search could have been relevant to such interests because they offer opportunities for skill development. Counterintuitively, an exploratory job search can help such job seekers find and pursue more relevant jobs. In an experiment (N = 122), we examined the effect of priming seemingly irrelevant jobs as skill development opportunities on inexperienced job seekers’ responses to job postings. Compared to those who did not receive the prime, those who received the prime reported higher perceived job relevance and, in turn, perceived job attractiveness for subsequently viewed job postings. The results suggest that career educators could use peer-to-peer learning, or public reflection, to encourage students to share insights with each other, reframe the meanings of job relevance, and pursue more relevant jobs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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