Back to work: Vocational issues and strategies for Canadians living with HIV/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been written since the first appearance of HIV/AIDS in 1981 about its effects on the Canadian health care and social services systems. However, researchers have given limited attention to issues of entry or re-entry to the competitive job market for HIV positive individuals. The emergence of highly active antiretroviral therapies (HAART) has allowed a significant number of persons who are HIV positive to experience a major recovery in health and energy. This increase in physical health has in turn led to a re-examination of the possibility of returning to former types and levels of activity, including the prospect of going back to work or entering the competitive workforce for the first time. The purpose of this paper is to outline some of the issues and concerns that impact HIV positive individuals' attempts to return to or enter the competitive workforce, particularly those relating to disability policies and public insurance. Data from in-depth interviews with a sample of people living with HIV/AIDS (PHAs) are used to help illustrate the disconnect between these policies and the lived experiences of PHAs. Also discussed are the opportunities for Canadian policies and practices to employ a functional definition of disability and a philosophy of early intervention in vocational rehabilitation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".