MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013624861 · doi:10.1177/0010880404273935

Persons with Disabilities

2005· article· en· W2013624861 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessWork (physics)Exploratory researchMarketingPublic relationsPsychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An exploratory study of fourteen Toronto hotels found that these hotels employ relatively few persons with disabilities. While responding human resources managers agree that hiring those with disabilities is a good practice, they noted numerous barriers to increased employment. Among the barriers is the fact that many people do not know how effective persons with disabilities can be in the hotel setting. Other barriers to be overcome are the lack of communication among employee groups and a failure of local employment agencies to work with hotels in placing persons with disabilities, as well as the physical layout of the hotels themselves. While the study is specific to Toronto, it seems reasonable to believe that the underlying causes of failure to employ persons with disabilities extend to other Canadian markets and, indeed, to other markets in North America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it