WHAT THEY NEED: DELIVERY OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT TO GRADE TWELVE STUDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapidly changing social and economic conditions can impart significant challenges to high school career decisions.Recent career education initiatives have been structured to support this school-to-work and school-to-post-secondary education transition.The student needs assessment focus of this study allows a unique insight into the availability, delivery, and effectiveness of high school career programs.This research provides data from a nineteen-item.Comprehensive Career Needs Survey, administered to 888, Southern Alberta grade 12 students.The results profile the student responses to questions on career plans after high school, the meaning of occupation and career, career choice, reasons for career choice, the importance of career planning, factors of encouragement and discouragement in career plans, and what would be most helpful in career plans.Questions on career help included the availability, use, and helpfulness of high school services, curriculum and resources, the people helpful to career, the confidence in career plans after high school, and the preferred work location.The results of this study suggest grade 12 students value career plans and the resources, both people and informational, to support transitions.These students voice the need to have passion for career, and report a wide range of occupational choices.The large majority who plan post-secondary education or training expressed the need for diverse but specific career development services to support success in career.High school career development resources are available but the efficacy data suggests their underutilization or reports of not being fully helpful to career plans.An important finding is that career resources are used in the school setting but not the community.The results of this study have implications for the delivery of high school career programs and the development of the public policy on career services.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".