Development of Peer Advisorsâ Competencies and Career Clarity in the St. George Career Centre at the University of Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undertaken in Fall 2015, this case study of 14 Peer Career Advisors working at the St. George Career Centre in the University of Toronto was intended to determine participants’ perspectives of the development of their competencies and career clarity through their roles, as well as the experiences supports available through the Career Centre that influenced development, and any additional supports that would enhance development. Theoretical underpinnings include Chickering and Reisser’s vectors of development, Super et. al.’s life stages theory of career development, and Kolb’s theory of experiential learning. Results of the study demonstrated that all participants perceived development through their roles, the majority reporting competency development and specifically advising skills. Participants reported training, professional development tasks, and opportunities for feedback contributed to development. Perceived barriers to development included lack of free time, the need to balance multiple responsibilities/priorities, and lack of both job-related and self-knowledge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".