MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051138093 · doi:10.1177/0730888413481030

Disability Accommodation in Nonstandard and Precarious Employment Arrangements

2013· article· en· W2051138093 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

VenueWork and Occupations · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationReasonable accommodationLegislationLabour economicsDemographic economicsSample (material)Work (physics)WageDistribution (mathematics)SociologyEconomicsPolitical sciencePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study, based on data from a large nationally representative sample of Canadian workers with disabilities, examines the relationship between employment arrangements and the accommodation of disability in the workplace. We address whether workers with disabilities in nonstandard arrangements are more likely to have unmet accommodation needs and if other key dimensions of precarious employment mediate the relationship between nonstandard work and accommodation. Results from multivariate models suggest that despite disability legislation, practices of workplace disability accommodation parallel the unequal distribution of other labor market protections, with workers in more precarious arrangements (i.e. those in nonpermanent, low-wage, and nonunion jobs) at greater risk of having unmet needs.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.281 · 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