Career writing interventions for career learning: an integrative literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This integrative literature review aimed to synthesise published research on the use of expressive, reflective and creative writing in a career context, known as Career Writing. Studies included English-language research from peer-reviewed journals published between 1990 and 2020 with intervention(s) involving writing for personal and professional development in a career context. Forty-five articles were thematically analysed, and three themes identified: 1. dialogue/voice, 2. learning, and 3. wellness/well-being. Moreover, five subthemes emerged: 2a. professional development, 2b. personal development, 2c. career-identity development, 3a. psychological wellbeing, and 3b. physical health and wellness. Analysis revealed that through dialogue with themselves and others, participants learned personally and professionally and, in some cases, developed insights about career direction. Participants in some of these studies experienced psychological well-being and in four cases they experienced physical improvements. It was emotions in addition to thoughts that led to the most profound insights described in some of the research 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".