Effects of a Neutral Response Option on Occupational Interest Circumplex Fit
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: Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the structural validity of Holland’s circular/hexagonal model in two versions of a commonly used Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional (RIASEC) occupational interest measure – one that used items with a neutral response option ( unsure) and one that used items without a neutral response option. Method: These comparisons were made using a sample of 1,025 undergraduate university business majors. A two-group Cosine Function Model (CFM) implemented in standard structural equation modeling software was used to investigate the circumplex fit across the two versions of the assessment. Results: CFM analyses suggested a high level of equivalence across versions such that (1) the correlation matrix of each group shows a good fit to the RIASEC circumplex, and (2) the two correlation matrices are essentially identical. Conclusion: The neutral response option (or lack thereof) did not seem to affect model fit. The generalizability of these results should be explored in future studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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