Effectiveness of informational interviewing for facilitating networking self‐efficacy in university students
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 Networking helps people explore careers and find jobs. To date, the scientific literature has described few evidence‐based techniques for boosting networking self‐efficacy in university students. Here, two studies assessed the effectiveness of informational interviewing as a theory‐based technique for improving networking self‐efficacy. Study 1 ( n = 90) used a pre–post, quasi‐experimental design and found participants who conducted a virtual informational interview with business professionals reported higher networking self‐efficacy at posttest than participants in a comparison condition. Study 2 ( n = 72) used a single‐group design with three measurement occasions and found self‐reported learning during an in‐person informational interview moderated the relationship between participants’ pre‐ and posttest networking self‐efficacy. Results suggest that informational interviewing can be an effective technique for increasing networking self‐efficacy among university students.
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 | 0.003 | 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 it