Inclusion as a focus of employment-related research in intellectual disability from 2000 to 2010: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This paper presents the results of a scoping review of the research literature on community-based employment for individuals with intellectual disabilities from 2000 to 2010. The review examined the variables studied in each paper, and considered the degree to which elements of social inclusion were addressed. Method: The search strategy identified a total of 245 articles, the total pool of which was reduced to 42 following abstract and text review. Two researchers reviewed the final set of articles and extracted information relevant to the study goals. Independent and dependent measures used in the studies were categorized relative to a conceptual model of social inclusion. The frequency with which each aspect of inclusion was addressed in the studies was totalled, and the resulting pattern analyzed qualitatively. Results: The analysis revealed that the majority of papers identified the work role achieved (i.e. employment and pay rates, job titles) as the primary construct of interest, while fewer than 5 articles focused on central aspects of inclusion, such as sense of belonging, reciprocity, and need fulfillment. Conclusions: This study profiles the evidence base relative to inclusive employment for people with intellectual disabilities. The lack of evidence on the degree to which social inclusion is being achieved through community-based employment highlights a critical area requiring attention.Implications for RehabilitationWork is an important social and financial involvement for persons with disabilities, and provides a potentially rich venue for social inclusion.Supported employment has become an accepted best practice in employment of persons with intellectual and other disabilities.While past research has focused on outcomes related to social integration, studies that examine and promote central features of social inclusion are important to move practice forward.
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 | 0.055 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.052 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".