Inclusion Through Work and Productivity for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Employment provides an important avenue to social inclusion for most adults. A range of productivity options exist for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) who wish to work, each offering unique challenges relative to inclusion. METHODS: This qualitative study examined the productivity experiences of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Ontario, Canada. A purposive sample of 74 individuals with productivity experiences spanning the spectrum of no employment to community-based jobs was selected from a pool of volunteers recruited through a mailed survey. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals and family members. Interview transcripts were subjected to a team-based analysis using grounded theory methods. RESULTS: Varying needs and interests exist in regard to work. Participants revealed a multitude of factors contributing to inclusion and exclusion through productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Productivity, whether paid or unpaid, can be an avenue to social inclusion. The experience of inclusion, particularly of belonging, depends on a successfully negotiated congruence between worker attributes and the social features and demands of the work environment.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 it