Disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction
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
Purpose Previous research has shown that individuals with disabilities are likely to be less satisfied with their jobs as compared to the able‐bodied. None of them explain the reasons for this difference. The purpose of this paper is to contend that this might be due to certain factors such as discrimination, harassment, or other conditions at the workplace. It might also be due to lower relative incomes. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses nationally representative Canadian data and attempts to account for the low levels of job satisfaction among Canadians with disabilities. Findings The results show that when certain workplace characteristics are introduced into the model, individuals with a mobility disability are no longer likely to be less satisfied as compared to individuals without disabilities. However, the negative effect for certain other types of disabilities remains, though the magnitude decreases. It is concluded that absence of assistive technology or employer accommodations might be the reason for the remaining satisfaction difference between those with disabilities and the able‐bodied. Originality/value This paper adds to the existing literature on job satisfaction by studying the relationship between disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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