Disability stigmatization as a barrier to employment equity for legally-blind Canadians
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
AbstractCanada has expressed a strong commitment to the rights of its citizens against discrimination, including those with disabilities. A question remains whether Canadians with disabilities are able to practice these rights. Our mixed-methods study sheds light on the situation of one important sub-group of people with disabilities – those who are legally blind. Our survey results show that the labour-force participation rate for this population is very low compared with those without disabilities, and also lower than the rate for persons with other disabilities. Legally-blind working-age Canadians have significantly higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, and perceive major barriers to employment. In-person interviews reveal the negative impact of one major barrier – disability stigmatization – on accessing meaningful employment and other societal assets. We discuss the implications of these findings and suggest policy directions.Keywords: disabilitystigmatizationlegally-blindemployment equityCanada Notes1. A minority of survey participants did not answer the question themselves but had their answers provided by somebody close to them (a proxy). These respondents have been excluded from the analysis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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