Environmental factors impacting work satisfaction and performance for adults with autism spectrum disorders
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: Individuals with ASD have some of the highest rate of post-graduation unemployment and competitive employment rates are very low. There is substantial research identifying specific person factors influencing employment outcomes, although there is very little research exploring the impact of environmental factors. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to understand the impact of environmental factors on work satisfaction and performance from the perspective of adults with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). METHODS: Qualitative interviews were used to gather personal perspectives from working adults with ASD. The data was micro-analyzed for open coding and organized under common categories. When data was saturated, axial coding occurred resulting in multiple categories linked together under a common central theme. RESULTS: Results identified the central category of Facilitators and Barriers of Person and Environment Fit for Work Satisfaction and Performance, which encompassed the categories, subcategories and links between categories. Both environmental factors and person-fit were identified as two overarching categories where barriers and facilitators were present. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with ASD identified that social interactions, attitudes, and the physical or sensory environment impacted perceptions of work satisfaction and performance. Future research is needed to better understand how to reduce environmental barriers in the workplace for adults with ASD.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it