Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent research on the civil rights issue of employment equity for people with psychiatric disabilities is reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: Mental disorders, particularly depression, are the most frequent source of occupational disability worldwide and are expected to grow. Employers are increasingly aware of the productivity costs associated with mental disorders and the importance of fostering a mentally healthy workforce. Few firms, however, have explicit policies to include disabled people in their workforce, and many employers continue to express prejudicial views toward people with mental disabilities which would exclude them from competitive work. At the same time, disability legislation has not offered the hoped-for protection for people with mental disorders. Employers have expressed concerns over the costs of making workplace accommodations and have successfully battled for a legal definition of disability that excludes many individuals with mental disorders. CONCLUSION: In the absence of antistigma efforts directed toward the business community, one wonders if the growing awareness of the productivity costs associated with mental disability will foster greater employment equity, or fuel more subtle forms of employment discrimination. Low employment levels among people with disabilities remain a major determinant of the social disparities they face.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".