Towards Developing a Theoretical Framework on Career Success of People with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malaysian workforce is increasingly encompassed by a group of minority who are incapacitated due to some illness or perhaps an accident. They are known as the people with disabilities (PWDs). More attention and initiatives are now built for the PWDs, thus leading to the assumption that they should be enjoying better level of career success. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical framework for measuring PWD’s career success based on the integration of sponsored mobility model of career success and person environment perspective. Suggested predictive potential of four key factors on PWD’s career success are person-job fit perception, needs-supplies fit perception, core self-evaluation and universal work environment. The developed theoretical framework would lead to an empirical study on objective and subjective career success of PWDs in Malaysia. The framework suggests specific individual attribute, personality and perception can lead to better objective and subjective career success. PWDs having positive core self-evaluation, higher levels of person-job fit and needs-supplies fit perception are believed to achieved better career outcomes, that is objective and subjective career success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".