Perspectives on work (re)entry for persons with disabilities: Implications for clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the prevalence of government funding to support employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, real jobs for this population still appear to be elusive. McMaster University researchers examined how six stakeholder groups defined workplace (re)entry success for persons with disabilities. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with representation from employers, unions, persons with disabilities, co-workers, supervisors and human resource departments. Participants numbered 86 and the average age was 42. Participant comments provided the researchers with rich data related to the study objectives. Success was perceived as not only a match between the employee and the job but also a win-win for employer and employer, a uniquely defined set of circumstances based on the specific individual and their environment as well as respect for the individual's dignity and quality of life. This article discusses the study and its outcomes and highlights implications for clinicians.
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 | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".