Distinct Paths to Protean Career Attitude: Family and Peer Support as Mediated by Grit Among Emerging Filipino Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While career development is almost identical to personal development, the emerging adults have been more active in finding the best career for them in the recent years (Benardo & Salanga, 2019). Social cognitive career theory (SSCT) offered concepts such as social factors and personal factors that can explain the dynamics of career attitudes. Following the arguments of the theory, 415 respondents answered a scale on social support, a measure or grit, and a scale of protean career attitude to test the assumption of the hypothesis derived from SSCT. Although personal factor such as grit and social support correlated with protean career attitude, the results showed a different path of career attitudes depending on its source. While grit fully mediated family support and protean career attitudes, peer support directly predicted protean career attitudes without any mediation from grit. This suggest that there were different kinds of support emerging adults need when it come to their family and that of their peers. The outcome of this study can serve as a basis for career development program that both workers and employers can benefit from.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".