Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identities of gender and disability can provoke questions of exclusion and inclusion in workplaces. In particular, d isabled Canadians who are underrepresented in the workforce are experiencing underemployment in the form of underutilized skills or unmet potential in the job market. This presentation will reveal the current status and cultural shifts in employment equity, and begin to answer related questions: 1) W hat is underemployment in and through the lives of disabled women? 2) How can underemployment be addressed at the organizational level? 3) What are the promising practices which aim to advance employment equity? 4) What are the significant employment equity changes and gaps? Narratives of disability and underemployment can relay insights and emotions to alert employers, policy makers and the public to the dire concerns for disabled persons. Drawing from the narratives and diversity practices from Canadian employers, promising strategies will be offered to reduce structural, environmental and attitudinal barriers to employment equity. Finally, cultural shifts in employment equity will be examined in relation to the broader context of workplaces across Canada. An understanding of the Canadian workplace can open a dialogue for international comparative analysis of challenges, practices, policies and legislation on gender and disability inequalities.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".