Consumer participation in the employment rehabilitation process: Contextual factors and implications for practice
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
Rehabilitation models of practice have emerged that offer persons' with disabilities opportunities to have an active role in the work entry or re(entry) process. Despite the growth and interest in empowering client involvement in practice, consumer views on the determinants of participation are not fully understood. Thus, consumer feedback on using a self-directed approach to employment rehabilitation was elicited to identify factors integral to their participation in the process. Focus groups were conducted with 35 adult consumers with developmental, mental health, physical and learning disabilities to gain insights into their involvement in a participatory approach to find employment. Content analysis of data revealed barriers and facilitators, which hindered or enabled consumer involvement in the vocational service process. This article discusses the importance of considering issues across the rehabilitation system, practice and lived contexts when implementing participatory approaches in vocational rehabilitation settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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