Alternative Productivity Structures and Reimbursement Models and their Role in Achieving Occupational Justice for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities – A Philosophical Conundrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: People with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) experience high levels of unemployment (Canadian Association for Community Living, 2013; Statistics Canada, 2008), yet supported, inclusive employment can promote independence, quality of life, social integration, and capacity-building (e.g., Cohen et al., 2008; Lysaght, Jakobsen, & Granhaug, 2012). Despite the advancement of the individual placement and support model of supported employment, workforce participation rates for this population remain low. Challenges related to limited skill sets or social-behavioural differences reduce opportunities for competitive employment. At the same time, the viability of productivity alternatives such as social enterprise, micro enterprise and volunteerism is limited by perceptions of these options as less inclusive, valued and desirable. Overall, lack of suitable productivity options contributes to social marginalization, and reduces opportunities for the individuals involved to experience rich occupational lives. Purpose: This presentation will report on findings of a study that examined work integration social enterprise as an employment option for people with IDD, and its potential to reduce social marginalization. In this session, we will present findings related to worker compensation models, interpreting these through a lens of occupational justice. Methods: The study used a multiple case study design, with 5 social enterprises in Ontario and Alberta, Canada purposively selected for study (Yin, 2009). Data collection methods included interviews with a variety of stakeholders, observation and document review. Data were reviewed using within and cross-case analyses to describe the nature of social enterprise in this sector, common trends, points of tension, and unique approaches. Results: Findings emerged in 8 theme areas associated with business development decisions. Six different compensation models were identified. Each approach, ranging from training stipends to minimum wage, carried its own implicit and explicit messages concerning worker capacity and the value of work performed. Philosophical, legal and political motivations were linked to wage structures. The tensions raised pointed to fundamental dilemmas around contributive justice (right to work), ethical and fair treatment of vulnerable workers, and worker needs. Intertwined with these issues were practical concerns and strategies related to social integration and financial survival of the enterprise. Conclusions: Occupational scientists see productivity as a fundamental human need. Social dialogue and efforts towards fair and equitable treatment of workers, the social inclusion movement, and the competing economic realities for employers raise critical questions around how paid employment can best be realized for people with disabilities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".