MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072654449 · doi:10.1080/09687591003701181

A review of the participation of disabled persons in the labour force: the Kenyan context

2010· review· en· W2072654449 on OpenAlexaff
Bathseba Opini

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability & Society · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGovernment of the Republic of Kenya
KeywordsKenyaDisabled peopleNarrativeContext (archaeology)Face (sociological concept)Government (linguistics)Work (physics)Public relationsPolitical scienceSociologyLawSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a review of the challenges that disabled people experience in participating in the Kenyan labour market. It draws on existing literature and on a narrative of the experiences of one disabled academic in a Kenyan university to highlight some of the forms of discrimination that disabled people have to cope with in their workplaces. The goal is to further our understanding of the nature of barriers that disabled people face in the work environment in Kenya, with a view of exploring ways of addressing those barriers and developing some recommendations for improvement. It is clear from the interview with a disabled academic that, despite strides made by the Kenyan government in terms of enacting the Disability Act, which aims at boosting disabled people’s participation in employment, there is still a big gap between the law and its implementation. What is needed is constitutional change and implementation of the existing law at all levels, as well as provision of resources to support this change.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability & SocietySame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207