Vocational status and perceived well‐being of workers with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the different employment statuses of under‐employment, temporary employment, unemployment and non‐participation in the labor force are associated with perceived well‐being among persons with disabilities. Design/methodology/approach The authors used data from the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) conducted by Statistics Canada to develop six categories of employment status. OLS regression analysis was used for hypothesis testing. Findings Findings indicated that fully utilized permanent employees show the highest level of life satisfaction while unemployed persons searching for work have the lowest levels of life satisfaction and the highest levels of perceived workplace discrimination. Permanent employees whose skills are greatly underutilized show the second‐lowest level of life satisfaction and equally high perceived workplace discrimination as unemployed persons. Non‐participants in the labor force show life satisfaction levels similar to those of permanent moderately underutilized employees as well as temporary employees, but report relatively little workplace discrimination. Originality/value The study links vocational status to the psychological well‐being of persons with disabilities in a large representative sample covering the full spectrum of disability types and occupational statuses. As such, it validates conclusions from smaller studies examining single organizations or focusing on workers with specific types of 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".