Employers’ perspectives of including young people with disabilities in the workforce, disability disclosure and providing accommodations
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: Enhancing the employment of people with disabilities can help support healthy and productive work. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to understand employer accommodation practices with youth with disabilities (i.e., as they currently exist and what employers need help with) and how they create an inclusive environment. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted involving in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 18 employers who hire young people with disabilities. Thematic analysis explored issues related to disclosure, accommodations, and inclusion. RESULTS: Most employers encouraged youth with disabilities to disclose their condition and emphasized the importance of building trust and rapport. Employers described how and when to provide accommodations, types of accommodations (i.e., formal, informal, physical, and social), and how they addressed unmet needs. Employers’ strategies for creating an inclusive workplace culture included: diversity training, addressing stigma and discrimination, open communication, mentoring and advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that most employers hiring youth with disabilities have strategies for encouraging them to disclose their condition and request accommodations, which can help to inform employers who do not hire people with disabilities or have effective strategies in place to support them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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