Describing heterogeneity of unmet needs among adults with a developmental disability: An examination of the 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Canada has committed to protect the rights and dignity of persons with developmental disabilities (DD), which means that labour markets, education, and training opportunities should be inclusive and accessible. PURPOSE: Describe the unmet employment, education and daily needs of adults with DD, with a sub analysis of persons with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and cerebral palsy (CP) in Canada, to inform efficient and equitable policy development. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Secondary analysis of 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability was used to study a sample including working age (15-64 years old) individuals with self-reported DD, CP and ASD. Persons with DD reported on their met and unmet needs in term of activities of daily living, education and employment. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Labour force participation is the lowest for those with DD compared to any other disability. Individuals with CP and ASD report a high level of unmet needs that differ in terms of educational, vocational and daily living supports. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Improving labour force participation to be inclusive and accessible requires policy that considers the range of unmet needs that exist for persons with DD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".