Spotlight on identity construction among professionals transitioning to an emerging occupation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The contemporary work environment is characterized by frequent transitions throughout an individual’s career. A relatively recent trend concerns established professionals relocating in newly emerging occupations. Despite the extensive research conducted on the construction of professional identity, there is still a dearth of knowledge regarding how occupational identity is formed. The aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of the process through which professionals (re)construct their occupational identity when making a career transition to an emerging occupation. Drawing on twenty-seven interviews with professionals in the accounting and law enforcement fields who have transitioned to the emerging antifraud occupation, we explore how they navigate tensions between different aspirational, professional, and expected identities, and how they employ strategies to establish or blur boundaries to define their emerging occupational identity. This study offers a deeper understanding of the process by which a coherent occupational identity is constructed and shaped by interaction between multiple identities. This research contributes to the literature on career transitions by developing a more nuanced understanding of the occupational boundary strategies that professionals employ to construct a coherent occupational identity during a career transition. Further, our study underscores a pivotal concern regarding the maintenance of professionalism as professionals move into nascent occupational roles. In such circumstances, the definition of occupational identity may be less clearly delineated, and the establishment of rule-setting may be primarily determined by the organization’s management, thus curtailing the autonomy traditionally associated with professionalism.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".