Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) and Employment: Making the Case for an ABI Survivor Community Economic Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employment is highly valued in our society and is an important determinant for mental and physical health, and ultimately, self-determination, however acquired brain injury survivors (ABI) experience significant employment barriers. Current Federal and Provincial government disability and mental health policies and programs promote the full social inclusion of disabled persons in Canadian society however, they do not address the disability-specific employment needs of many ABI survivors, particularly those with more serious disabilities. A non-government employment initiative that started within the mental health disability community and that has demonstrated notable success in assisting with the disability-specific employment needs of members of this group is the consumer/survivor community economic development approach (CED). This study explored the gaps in our current disability and mental health employment policies and programs in meeting the employment goals of ABI survivors, and examined the viability of the consumers/survivors CED approach for members of this group. This study was consistent with critical social science methodology and was based on a qualitative study of 4 ABI/mental health service providers, 6 consumers/survivors, and 10 ABI survivors. The interviews with these three groups combined with the literature reviewed in this paper, reveals the systemic, societal, and structural barriers that maintain the exclusion of people with disabilities. Conversely, an examination of the consumer/survivor CED approach reveals principles and a value proposition that facilitate the social inclusion of people with disabilities. This exploratory study is intended to serve as a catalyst for the advocacy of government support for a CED designed for, with, and by ABI survivors. Correspondingly, this thesis argues that disability policy-makers must acknowledge the need for changes to our capitalist system of labour, and in our country's understanding of citizenship, because both are responsible for the continued restricted citizenship or non-citizenship of non-working marginalized groups.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".