What happens after graduation? Outcomes, employment, and recommendations of recent junior/community college graduates with and without disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective was to compare employment status of junior/community college graduates with and without disabilities. METHODS: We compared post-graduation outcomes of 182 graduates with and 1304 without disabilities from career/technical and pre-university programs from three junior/community colleges. Findings for graduates who had registered for disability related services from their school and those who had not were examined separately. Reported academic obstacles and facilitators were also compared. RESULTS: Few employment differences between graduates with and without disabilities were found. Two-thirds of career/technical graduates from both groups were employed, approximately 30% were studying, and less than 3% were either looking for work or "unavailable for work." Over 80% of pre-university graduates in both groups were continuing their studies; here, too, numbers of employed graduates (14% with and 13% without disabilities) were similar and very few in both groups (<2%) were either looking for work or "unavailable for work." Full versus part-time employment of these two groups was very similar and the same proportion of graduates with and without disabilities were working in jobs related to their studies. Only in "closely related" work did graduates without disabilities have the advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Employment prospects for junior/community college graduates with disabilities seem to be quite positive.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".