The Dream Job Academy: University Students’ Experiences of an Arts-Based Career Exploration Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University students struggle with making career decisions. Given the important roles that identity and unconscious/intuitive thinking play in decision-making in today’s world of work, career guidance should help students gain self-understanding and access unconscious/intuitive insights. Emerging research suggests that arts-based methods may be an effective career guidance approach. The present study sought to empirically investigate the question, “What is the impact of an arts-based intervention on university students’ career decision-making?” Eight participants of an existing arts-based career exploration group at the University of Toronto were interviewed. Using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2006), three themes were developed: (1) A Weight Has Been Lifted, (2) New Questions, New Insights, and (3) Thinking in 3D. Results support the ability of arts-based methods to promote self-understanding and highlight the importance of appropriate scaffolding and the group format in delivering arts-based career interventions. The psychosocial implications of the intervention are also discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".