Microenterprise Options for People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: An Outcome Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Opportunities for community employment of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are limited, and have not improved over the past quarter century of interest and effort. This report provides the findings from an outcome study of this issue. Twenty‐seven people with intellectual and developmental disability, residents in Kent County, Michigan, USA, chose to engage in microenterprise and became the basis of this study. We measured changes in the qualities and quantities of work life. Participants reported enhanced quality of work life in most of the 17 areas. Their overall “scale score” significantly increased by 26 points on a 100‐point scale. The support workers' data revealed significantly enhanced quality of work life in 5 of 14 areas, and their overall scale increase of 6 points approached statistical significance. Preliminary findings are regarded as encouraging, particularly because statistics on competitive and supported employment have not improved in 25 years. Microenterprise offers an alternative that promises to be satisfying, meaningful, enjoyable, and may cost significantly less to implement than traditional sheltered workshops and adult day activity centers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".