Scoping Review of Work Disability Policies and Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This scoping review identifies the foci of research articles that address government laws, policies and programs designed to foster labour market integration of people who, due to illness or disability, face challenges entering or staying in the workforce. Method: A systematic search of English-language peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2014 yielded 14,474 articles. Title and abstract review identified 723 included articles that addressed government-led programs, policy or legislation on work integration and/or income support after injury, illness or impairment. These were sorted by theme, work disability program or policy, disability type, jurisdiction and year published. Results: The number of articles published that address work disability laws, policies and programs increased steadily. Most articles addressed disability in general. Among articles with a specific health focus, mental health was the most common. Research gaps are identified for mixed method study designs, chronic and episodic conditions, illness and cancer, and for work disability policy studies outside of North America, Northern Europe and Australia. Conclusions: We find a growing number of published articles about work disability and policy and identify specific areas where is a need for further research.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".