Career aspirations and workplace expectations among youth with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Youths with disabilities have lower employment rates than youths without disabilities, which are often a result of inaccessible environments, employer's lack of knowledge about people with disabilities and discriminatory attitudes. Exploring youths' career aspirations is important because it can prompt or hinder career planning, and contribute to youths' preparation for adult life. The purpose of our study was to explore the career aspirations and workplace expectations of youths with physical disabilities. METHOD: We drew on qualitative discussion forum data from a larger study focusing on employment preparation e-mentoring intervention for youths with physical disabilities. Our sample comprised 44 youths aged 15-25 years (mean age 18.9, 47% female) with physical disabilities. We analyzed the data using a qualitative, content analysis approach. RESULTS: Youths described several areas that helped to develop their occupational capacity including self-advocacy, pursuing post-secondary education, volunteering/co-op, family support, and social networks. Areas where youths anticipated encountering occupational constraints involved: transportation, attitudes and discrimination, physicality of work and self-care, communication skills, and finding work or volunteer positions. Youths' expectations for the workplace included: disability disclosure and requesting accommodations, and a respectful environment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlighted that youths with physical disabilities had diverse career aspirations that are shaped by various occupational capacities and constraints.Implications for rehabilitationYouth with physical disabilities may need further support with accessing and navigating public transportation independently to gain employment, and also developing their communication skills, specifically how to disclose their condition to employers and coping with potential discrimination.Clinicians and educators should help youth with disabilities to gain exposure to a variety of career options (including STEM) while supporting them to find accessible positions that are compatible with their abilities.Clinicians and educators could consider helping to foster self-advocacy skills among youth with disabilities which are needed to disclose their condition and request accommodations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".