An Update on Affirmative Businesses or Social Firms for People With Mental Illness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social firms, or "affirmative businesses" as they are known in North America, are businesses created to employ people with disabilities and to provide a needed product or service. This Open Forum offers an overview of the development and status of social firms. The model was developed in Italy in the 1970s for people with psychiatric disabilities and has gained prominence in Europe. Principles include that over a third of employees are people with a disability or labor market disadvantage, every worker is paid a fair-market wage, and the business operates without subsidy. Independent of European influence, affirmative businesses also have developed in Canada, the United States, Japan, and elsewhere. The success of individual social firms is enhanced by locating the right market niche, selecting labor-intensive products, having a public orientation for the business, and having links with treatment services. The growth of the social firm movement is aided by legislation that supports the businesses, policies that favor employment of people with disabilities, and support entities that facilitate technology transfer. Social firms can empower individual employees, foster a sense of community in the workplace, and enhance worker commitment through the organization's social mission.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it