MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Disabled people, work and welfare

2015· book· en· W1648041118 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)WelfarePsychologySociologyBusinessPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paid employment is the primary marker of social inclusion. Welfare reform is encouraging disabled people to move from reliance on welfare to income from employment. For those with qualifications and skills new opportunities are emerging. For many, however, gaining access to and staying in employment is challenging. The proportion of disabled people in mainstream employment has plateaued at a level far below that for non-disabled people. The chapter examines two alternatives to paid employment for disabled people, which can offer the benefits of work without many of the difficulties of mainstream workplaces. First, social enterprises offer flexible and accommodating conditions of employment that recognise the complex challenges of impairment. Second, volunteering and creative arts can provide many of the personal and social benefits of paid employment and, through contributing something of social value, challenge dominant assumptions about the place of disabled people in society. Alternative forms of ‘work’, whilst not addressing the financial challenges faced by many, do offer possibilities of being valued and feeling included. The chapter draws on data and research evidence from Britain and Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it