A review of employment outcome measures in vocational research involving adults with neurodevelopmental disabilities
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: Adults with neurodevelopmental disability (NDD) have poor employment outcomes when compared to their peers without disabilities. Examining employment outcomes beyond common dichotomous descriptive metrics (i.e., employed versus unemployed) depends on the use of standard measures and structured procedures. OBJECTIVE: This review of vocational research literature focused on identifying measures of employment outcomes for adults with NDD. METHODS: Searches were conducted across five databases - ERIC, MEDLINE, CINAHL, HaPI, and PsycINFO. Screening was conducted in duplicate, with all disagreements adjudicated by the senior researcher. RESULTS: A total of 45 articles met inclusion criteria, and data extraction revealed that 64 different employment measures were used in these vocational research studies. CONCLUSIONS: This work summarizes the employment measures for people with NDD utilized in the literature. Descriptions of these measures were provided and coding by person and environment themes, which is a useful resource for planning future vocational research for people with NDD.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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