Improving our understanding of unmet needs among adults with a developmental disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Labour force participation is lowest for persons with developmental disabilities (DD) compared to any other disability in Canada, even though many are ready, willing and able to work. Those who are employed often work for below minimum wage and have minimum protection by labour legislation. Yet little detail is known about employment outcomes for persons with DD in a Canadian context. Using national population survey data, this study explored the unmet employment, education and daily living needs of persons with two types of developmental disability, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and cerebral palsy (CP; Zwicker, Zaresani and Emery 2017)[1]. Disability was cited as a key barrier to employment for those not in the labour force, highlighting an urgent need for policies that promote accessibility and equal opportunity, as well as improved workplace practices and employment services and supports. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the experiences and challenges pertaining to the workplace, education and social supports, necessary in designing policies that deliver efficient and equitable services and better address the needs of Canadians with DD – a group that has been largely absent from policy dialogue. [1] ASD and CP are two of the most common chronic developmental conditions that result in disability in Canadian children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".