Perspectives on work (re)entry for persons with disabilities: Implications for clinicians
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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