Job Accommodation Resources: Lessons from the Global Neighborhood. (Accommodations and Global Perspectives)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations' Division of Social Development estimated that there were more than 500 million people with disabilities in 2000. Of this number, 386 million were estimated to be of working age (U.N. Division of Social Development, n.d.). Countries struggle with the issue of employment of people with disabilities. International conferences such as the World Assembly of Disabled Peoples' International, the General Assembly of Rehabilitation International, and Annual Conference of the World Association of Persons with Disabilities focus on issues pertaining to people with disabilities and employment. When people with disabilities obtain and maintain employment, their contributions help strengthen personal, community, and even national economies. The intent of the present investigation was to gain international perspectives on (a) resources available to facilitate employment, (b) worksite accommodation information-dissemination models, and (c) existing barriers to employment of people with disabilities. These were the topics for the three questions asked of disability experts and individuals with disabilities around the world. What is happening in the global neighborhood? Requests originating outside the U.S. for accommodation information sparked the present work by the International Center for Disability Information (ICDI). The ICDI has a 30-year history of service and research on issues related to improving employment of people with disabilities. The ICDI serves as the umbrella organization for a variety of funded programs, including the Job Accommodation Network (JAN). JAN is a free consulting service funded by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy. The mission of JAN is to assist in hiring, retraining, retaining, and advancing people with disabilities. This is accomplished by providing free, immediate, up-to-date, and comprehensive information on disability issues, work accommodations, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other U.S. disability-related legislation. JAN provides information concerning all types of disabilities and functional limitations. Currently, JAN consultants respond to approximately 32,000 cases annually. Inquiries come from employers of all types and business sizes, rehabilitation counselors, legal and educational professionals, and individuals with disabilities and their families. JAN was founded in 1983 by the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (now known as the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy). Since 1983, JAN has grown considerably. This growth has been a result of advancements in technologies (Internet access) and an increase in the need for information as a result of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The development and growth of the World Wide Web prompted JAN to augment its service delivery methods to include (a) an extensive website on disability, employment, and work accommodation issues and (b) e-mail contacts from people seeking accommodation solutions. At present, this website experiences nearly five million hits annually. From 1986 through 2000, the Canadian government (Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work) also contracted with the ICDI to provide accommodation information throughout Canada. In the first six months of 2001, there were 53,448 users of the JAN website from outside the U.S. These contacts came from 123 countries. The most frequent international users during that six-month period were Canada (with 18,028 hits), Japan (4,562), United Kingdom (4,543), Australia (3,842), and Germany (3,390). Other users included France, Israel, China, Pakistan, Peru, Botswana, Nepal, Belize, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and 108 other countries. Inquires have been received concerning translating JAN's Searchable Online Accommodation Resource (http://www.JAN.wvu.edu/SOAR/) for use in various nations. From inquires and statements JAN has received from around the world, it is clear that there is a universal need for accommodation information. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".