Facilitating employment opportunities for adults with intellectual and developmental disability through parents and social networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: People with intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) have historically had high unemployment and underemployment rates and continue to face significant barriers to attaining and sustaining employment. The purpose of this research, conducted in Ontario, Canada was to better understand the experiences of people with IDD gaining and keeping productivity roles. METHOD: We used qualitative semi-structured interviews with 74 participants with IDD and their families or caregivers as proxies regarding the employment of a person with IDD. We selected a sample of persons from three different geographic regions in Ontario, Canada, and analyzed data through coding methods consistent with a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Our results demonstrate the importance of parents and other members of social and family networks relative to connecting with work options and sustaining work over time, especially through continued advocacy and investment. Parents helped individuals with IDD negotiate the right job fit, though they often encountered challenges as a result of their efforts. CONCLUSION: Practitioners must understand how to support parents to be effective advocates for their adult children with IDD, assist them to develop and maintain their social networks and help them to avoid caregiver burnout. Implications for Rehabilitation People with intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) face numerous challenges in indentifying work options and overcoming barriers to employment. Parents and other non-paid support members of social networks can be instrumental in ensuring that persons with IDD not only secure initial job placements, but also sustain employment and employment alternatives. Professionals that support persons with IDD can direct their efforts to helping persons with IDD develop strong social connections, as well as helping parents to prevent burnout.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".