International Employment Statistics for People With Intellectual Disability—The Case for Common Metrics
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
Abstract The W orld R eport on D isability identifies employment as an important element of social participation. The R eport also points to the need for research that crosses national boundaries to identify and address central areas of concern. However, such efforts are hampered with respect to intellectual disability ( ID ) by inconsistencies in the population definitions used, the definition of employment or employability, and metrics of employment participation. The authors explore the varied ways in which employment participation rates for people with ID are determined and reported in jurisdictions around the world, and note that with respect to employment metrics, there remains substantial variation in the methods used in data collection and reporting across agencies and countries. They also note that close inspection of methodologies is required in order to interpret data from any official statistical agency (as even when methods and definitions are explicit, the variations in approaches make comparisons difficult). Recommendations for harmonizing disparate definitions and metrics include a systematic analysis of the terminology and methods used in national surveys that would assist in identifying which data are comparable, agreement on a protocol and process for examining employment outcomes in the ID population, and the creation of an international panel on employment and ID charged to identify common terminology and population parameters to be specified in sample selection and description in localized research and studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.516 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it