MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920892299 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2019.1570356

Prioritizing barriers and solutions to improve employment for persons with developmental disabilities

2019· article· en· W2920892299 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

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSinneave Family Foundation
KeywordsStakeholderGovernment (linguistics)PopulationPsychologyBusinessPublic economicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsMedicineEconomicsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Persons with a developmental disability have the lowest rate of labour force participation relative to other disabilities. The widening gap between the labour force participation of persons with versus without disability has been an enduring concern for many governments across the globe, which has led to policy initiatives such as labour market activation programs, welfare reforms, and equality laws. Despite these policies, persistently poor labour force participation rates for persons with developmental disabilities suggest that this population experiences pervasive barriers to participating in the labour force.Materials and methods: In this study, a two-phase qualitative research design was used to systematically identify, explore and prioritize barriers to employment for persons with developmental disabilities, potential policy solutions and criteria for evaluating future policy initiatives. Incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives, a Nominal Group Technique and a modified Delphi technique were used to collect and analyze data.Results: Findings indicate that barriers to employment for persons with developmental disabilities are multi-factorial and policy solutions to address these barriers require stakeholder engagement and collaboration from multiple sectors.Conclusions: Individual, environmental and societal factors all impact employment outcomes for persons with developmental disabilities. Policy and decision makers need to address barriers to employment for persons with developmental disabilities more holistically by designing policies considering employers and the workplace, persons with developmental disabilities and the broader society. Findings call for cross-sectoral collaboration using a Whole of Government approach.Implications for RehabilitationPersons with a developmental disability face lower levels of labour force participation than any other disability group.Individual, environmental and societal factors all impact employment outcomes for persons with developmental disabilities.Decision and policy makers need to address barriers to employment for persons with developmental disabilities holistically through policies guiding employers and broader societal behaviour in addition to those aimed at the individuals (such as skill development or training).Due to multi-factorial nature of barriers to employment for persons with developmental disabilities, policy solutions are wide-ranging and fall under the responsibility of multiple sectors for implementation. This calls for cross-sectoral collaboration using a “Whole of Government” approach, with shared goals and integrated responses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.286 · 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