MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104836964 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-51.5.376

The State of the Science of Employment and Economic Self-Sufficiency for People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

2013· review· en· W2104836964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Derek Nord, Richard G. Luecking, David Mank, William E. Kiernan, Christina Wray

Bibliographic record

VenueIntellectual and developmental disabilities · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Psychological interventionPsychologySupported employmentIntellectual disabilitySelf-sufficiencyState (computer science)Quarter (Canadian coin)Economic growthEconomicsPolitical scienceWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employment, career advancement, and financial independence are highly valued in the United States. As expectations, they are often instilled at a young age and incentivized throughout adulthood. Despite their importance, employment and economic sufficiency continue to be out of reach for most people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Over the last quarter century, extensive research and effort has been committed to understanding and improving these phenomena. This paper summarizes this employment research base by reviewing the literature on the effectiveness of the current employment support system, employment-specific interventions, and the economics and cost benefits of employment for people with IDD. Recommendations and directions for future research are also presented.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations64
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntellectual and developmental disabilitiesSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207