Exploring how volunteer work shapes occupational potential among youths with and without disabilities: A qualitative comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".