Thinking differently about ‘work’ and social inclusion for disabled people
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Paid employment is the primary marker of social exclusion and inclusion in Western neoliberal states, including the two nations – Britain and Canada (Roulstone and Prideaux, 2012) – that we focus on in this chapter. Those not in receipt of income from work and reliant on welfare benefits, including disabled people, are being placed under increasing pressure to participate in state programmes of ‘reactivation’ to move from welfare into employment, as part of a broader transformation of the welfare state and government budget cuts (see, for example, Duncan Smith, 2014, in Britain). For some disabled people (in particular, those already in some form of work, or with higher skill levels and experience), there are new opportunities for access into and maintenance of employment. For many, however, gaining access to, and staying in, paid employment is extremely challenging. There are numerous barriers to employment for disabled people, including: • a lack of qualifications and experience; • attitudes of employers; • absence of adequate support from agencies; • physical access to the workplace; • a lack of appropriate job opportunities (Thornton, 2009; Crawford, 2012). People can also face difficulties at work that include: • the attitudes of fellow employees and supervisors; • expectations in terms of behaviour and appearance; • pay and conditions, including hours and flexibility (Roulstone et al, 2003; Wilton, 2004). For these reasons, the proportion of disabled people in paid employment has plateaued at a level far below that for non-disabled people. Furthermore, as austerity measures tighten, many disabled people are finding themselves in a double bind. They are unable to secure a paid job and are denied adequate benefit payments to support themselves, with a resultant decline in wellbeing. Moreover, the rhetoric of welfare reform in both Britain and Canada is becoming increasingly sharp. In Britain, popular and political discourses increasingly contrast those understood as ‘strivers’ (who take an active approach to gaining employment) with those seen as ‘skivers’ (in receipt of welfare benefits, and who make little effort to find work). The Canadian landscape is more uneven because social welfare is a provincial policy matter, but there too there has been a prevailing trend towards emphasising individual responsibility and (a lack of) motivation, while downplaying the ‘complex and deeply-rooted social and systemic inequalities’ that shape the employment prospects of disabled people (see Gewurtz et al, 2014, p 1; also Prince, 2012).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,029 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».