MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811094453 · doi:10.1080/14427591.2018.1490339

Exploring how volunteer work shapes occupational potential among youths with and without disabilities: A qualitative comparison

2018· article· en· W2811094453 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
KeywordsOccupational scienceQualitative researchVolunteer workPsychologyOccupational therapyWork (physics)VolunteerSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there are many benefits associated with volunteering, little is known about the volunteer experiences among youths with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to explore the benefits and challenges in volunteer work among youths with disabilities (physical and developmental) compared to youths without disabilities. We conducted 24 interviews including 12 youths with disabilities and 12 without, aged 17-24 (mean age 21.5 years). The concept of occupational potential, which refers to human capacity to engage in a meaningful occupation, informed the study. We found several similarities and some differences between youths with and without a disability regarding their occupational capacity, constraints and potential. Participants reported several individual and social influences affecting their occupational capacity to engage in volunteering. Individual motivations for volunteering included helping others, preventing boredom, gaining skills, and developing social networks. Both groups of youths encountered some challenges with engaging in volunteering including difficulty finding positions, balancing volunteer work with other responsibilities, transportation and commuting, and negative attitudes from others. Our results showed how participants’ volunteer experiences allowed them to explore career interests and abilities, and refine or align their career pathway. Exposure to new fields along with developing essential employment-related skills helped them to develop their occupational potential. Our findings show that although youths with and without disabilities volunteer for different reasons, they experience similar benefits and challenges; however, this often manifests in different ways. Volunteering can have important benefits for youths with disabilities.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.206 · 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