Predictors of employment for young adults with developmental motor disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the personal, family, and community factors that facilitate or hinder employment for young adults with developmental motor disabilities. METHODS: Quantitative methods with an embedded qualitative component were used. Seventy-six persons between the ages of 20 and 30 years of age (Mean = 25, SD = 3.1) with a diagnosis of either cerebral palsy or spina bifida completed questionnaires addressing factors such as depression, and participated in a semi-structured interview that allowed participants to describe their experiences with education, employment, transportation, and other services. RESULTS: Almost half of the participants (n = 35) were not currently employed. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that gender (females were less likely to be employed), IQ (lower IQ associated with unemployment), and transportation dependence accounted for 42% of the variance in employment. Themes emerging from content analysis of the interviews supported the findings related to transportation barriers. Social reactions to disability limited employment opportunities, and participants often felt stuck in terms of employment options with limited opportunities for advancement. CONCLUSIONS: Transportation is a significant barrier to employment and innovative solutions are needed. Issues related to gender need to be considered when addressing employment inequities for persons with primarily motor disabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".