Untapped potential: Perspectives on the employment of people with intellectual disability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While individuals with intellectual disabilities can make valuable contributions in community workplaces, they typically experience low rates of paid employment. The goal of this article is to explore the reasons for the limited involvement of this population in competitive employment, provide a rationale for including individuals with intellectual disabilities as employees, and propose policy, structural and attitudinal changes that would be necessary to include them more meaningfully in the workforce. METHODS: The authors conducted a review of the literature relevant to the key theoretical concepts of disability, employment, organizational management and inclusion. RESULTS: The analysis reveals a number of theoretical, philosophical, legal and business arguments for and against the inclusion of workers with intellectual disabilities as employees, and suggests system level changes needed to mitigate challenges to recruiting, hiring and retaining these workers. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to the employment situation for workers with intellectual disabilities will require major shifts in government policy, workplace practices and vocational preparation of youth with intellectual disabilities. Continued research is necessary to identify best practices.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it