Career Construction for Hephapreneurship1: Alternative Framework for Persons with Disabilities2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents Career Construction for Hephapreneurship (CCH) and creates a roadmap of career choice/construction by people with disabilities, henceforth referred to as differently abled persons. The expression “differently abled persons” is a near-synonym of ‘persons with disabilities’. In this article, the idea of differently abled persons emphasises ‘positive difference’ and abilities instead of disabilities. The development of CCH was grounded in literature as well as the experiences of differently abled persons. A search for conceptual frameworks addressing career choice/construction by differently abled persons revealed gaps. This article outlines features of CCH constituting limited career choice, opportunities to learn, hephapreneurship and policy development. Particular emphasis is placed on the framework providing viable ways of assisting differently abled persons to participate actively in the world of work. The advantages of the framework centre on advocacy, policy influence and sparking further research on career construction and disability. The development of hephapreneurship is also possible. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n15p303
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".