Temporality: A fruitful concept for understanding, studying, and supporting people in transition
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
Abstract The specific processes of transitions or turning points have been studied in different fields, notably vocational psychology, career development, sociology, and the life‐course approach. However, little work has brought together these different strands of research. To fill this gap, we explore the issue of temporality, raised to varying degrees by each approach, with the aim of showing its heuristic value in the study of career transitions. After clarifying a number of concepts, we describe research methodologies that can be used to identify temporality and suggest keys of comprehension to understand transitions from a temporal angle. Finally, we describe intervention avenues that take temporality into account to support people in career transition. Covering the past, the present, and the future, they aim to stimulate self‐reflection in order to give meaning to the most significant biographical experiences and, hence, make the present clearer and anticipation of the future easier.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 it