Does visibility of disability influence employment opportunities and outcomes? A thematic analysis of multi-stakeholder perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with developmental disabilities are significantly un- and under-employed. Little is known about the relationship between visibility of a disability and employment. OBJECTIVE: To explore how visibility of a disability influences employment for adults with developmental disabilities. METHODS: In-depth interviews were done with caregivers, adults with developmental disabilities, and employment support professionals. Content related to visibility/invisibility of disability was thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Three main themes, with 10 sub-themes, emerged: (i) Dispelling Myths: Assumptions Related to Disability; (ii) Rock and a Hard Place: Disclosing ‘Invisible’ Disability; (iii) Finders-Keepers: Easier to find, but not keep, a job with invisible disability. CONCLUSIONS: Assumptions about disability underpinned employment-related challenges experienced by adults with developmental disabilities. Our findings highlight the need for employment initiatives that go beyond skill-based training to target social barriers of employment, such as stigma and lack of disability knowledge.
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 | 0.038 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".