Employment after spinal cord injury: The impact of government policies in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British Columbia Paraplegic Association (BCPA) sought a research partnership to evaluate where its activities should be focused. A survey of members with disabilities of the BCPA included questions on employment and identified three priorities related to employment. These were the need for assistance in finding appropriate work, the impact of policies of government and insurance agencies, and attitudes of employers. This paper examines the social and political environment related to employment following spinal cord injury in British Columbia, Canada. There is no coherent set of goals underlying government employment and income programs in Canada. Incremental development of particular employment and income programs during the 20th century led to a patchwork of policies and programs, which deal with people differently according to the cause of their disability. Federal and provincial governments have attempted to educate employers and reduce barriers to employment of those with disabilities by focusing on anti-discrimination legislation and individual rights (e.g. the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act). However, people with disabilities face non-accommodating environments, inadequate income support, lack of opportunities and little political influence which stem from an unfair distribution of societal resources, not from discrimination. Joint efforts of the BCPA and other disability organizations are likely to have the most impact on legislative changes.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".