MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416329752 · doi:10.1177/00332941251399139

Development of a Short Version of the Jackson Career Explorer: The JCE Mini

2025· article· en· W4416329752 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristi Baerg MacDonald, Julie Aitken Schermer

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInternal consistencyScale (ratio)PsychometricsPersonalityConsistency (knowledge bases)Convergent validitySample (material)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present study was to create a shorter and contemporary version of the Jackson Career Explorer (JCE), titled “The JCE Mini”. Utilizing archival data of people who had completed the JCE ( N = 3105), half of the sample was used to develop shorter, three-item scales, and the second half was used to validate the shorter measure (102 items) with additional self-report responses. The JCE Mini showed good internal consistency for most scales and good convergent validity with other career inventories. Correlations with a personality measure were consistent with previous research of the full JCE. In Study 2, a new scale was created to assess an interest in technological careers to improve the JCE Mini’s relevance to the current job market by testing six new items. In addition, we tested 20 new items in nine scales that were updated to reflect changes in the workplace and improve the psychometrics of the scales. The new sample ( N = 609) completed 102 items from the JCE Mini of Study 1 and 26 new items. Results suggest that the new JCE Mini, consisting of 105 items that assess 28 work roles or specific careers (one more than the original JCE), and seven work styles demonstrate good internal consistencies for the scales and good convergent validity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207