Perspectives of key stakeholders about vocational training and rehabilitation in Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Vocational training and rehabilitation programs are effective in increasing employability and community participation of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Much of the research on effective programming has been conducted in high-income countries with resources targeted at individuals with intellectual disabilities. Although Trinidad and Tobago is a high-income country, there is a dearth of services and resources available to individuals with intellectual disabilities. This article explores stakeholder perspectives on the current status of vocational training and rehabilitation programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities in Trinidad and Tobago. Method Participants from diverse groups were identified through snowball sampling. Data were collected in the form of semi-structured interviews conducted in person in Trinidad and Tobago and ranging from 45 to 75 minutes in duration. Interviews followed a loose structure of open-ended questions and the person–environment–occupation model helped inform the questions. Results Thirty participants completed the interviews including clients, parents, teachers, principals, non-governmental organization representatives and occupational therapists. Several themes and subthemes emerged including balancing the need for inclusion and segregation, stigma, social policy, issues in current vocational services and independence and expectations. Conclusion Vocational services in Trinidad and Tobago face many challenges including resource shortages and meeting the varying needs of clients. They also provide important safe spaces for socialization and acceptance. Resources are needed to improve the level of current services and to help address the competing and at times contradictory goals of differing stakeholders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".