Employer perceptions of the employability of workers in a social business.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined employer perceptions of employability of job candidates working in a social business for people with mental illnesses. METHOD: Using an analogue research design, 99 employers participated in a simulated job hiring process, rating 2 applicants on potential to do the job, fit with workplace culture and likelihood of hiring. One job applicant worked in a social business, and the second was either (a) working in a conventional business, (b) with employment lapse attributable to mental health issues, or (c) with an unexplained employment lapse. Paired samples t tests were used to compare ratings. Qualitative data were collected regarding the rationale for rankings and a content analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Employer rankings were significantly higher for the applicant working in a social business compared to either applicant with an employment lapse. Employers rated the candidate working in a conventional business significantly higher compared with the candidate in a social business only on ratings of likelihood to hire. Employers valued the recency of work experience in the social business, citing concerns about risks associated with employment lapses. Their comments suggested a lack of understanding of the nature of social business. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Experience in a social business appears to lessen the disadvantage of unemployment in the job hiring process, but does not appear to be ranked on par with experience in the conventional workforce. The social business sector could benefit from considering ways to publically portray these work opportunities to enhance acceptance and inclusion. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".