Disruption, disbelief and resistance: A meta-synthesis of disability in the workplace
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
This article presents the findings from a meta-synthesis of qualitative research on the experiences of persons with disabilities in the workplace. The purpose of this review was to explore how organizational culture influences the experiences of people with disabilities in the workplace, and the impact of disability on organizational culture. Findings from seven qualitative peer-reviewed studies on the experiences of people with disabilities at work and organizational culture published between 1995 and 2006 were synthesized using the meta-ethnography approach. The findings highlight how experiences of people with disabilities and organizational culture intersect in the workplace. Specifically, accessibility in the workplace involves more than removing physical barriers. People with disabilities are affected by the degree of acceptance and flexibility in the workplace, and relationships with co-workers and supervisors. However, the presence of disability may be perceived as disruptive to the organization, operation and structure of the workplace, resulting in disbelief and resistance. The findings suggest that attention and resources should be directed supporting the implementation of disability and human rights legislation and increasing tolerance for diversity in the workplace.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it