MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779480979 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v10i1.43022

Improving our understanding of unmet needs among adults with a developmental disability

2017· article· en· W2779480979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Lai, Stephanie Dunn, Jennifer Zwicker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207