MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385729950 · doi:10.1080/2194587x.2023.2224577

Career Development Is Everyone’s Responsibility: Envisioning Educators as Career Influencers

2023· article· en· W4385729950 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Stebleton, Candy Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of College and Character · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfluencer marketingConversationCareer developmentMandateMeaning (existential)Construct (python library)PsychologyPedagogyCareer educationValue (mathematics)Student affairsPublic relationsSociologyMedical educationHigher educationVocational educationPolitical scienceManagementMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant world events such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shifted the way that people of all ages view their careers and the meaning of work in their lives. While campus career services hold a mandate to facilitate student career readiness and success, it cannot accomplish this ambitious goal alone. Career influencers are student affairs educators, administrators, and faculty members who regularly interact with students on campus and can initiate meaningful career-related conversations—even if they do not hold career development expertise. The authors discuss the value of purpose narratives that students can construct to describe their experiences and help build resiliency during times of uncertainty. The conclusion provides recommendations for post-secondary educators to consider to effectively frame every student conversation as a career conversation.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0270.028
Scholarly communication0.0240.019
Open science0.0020.018
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of College and CharacterSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207