The Communicational Dimension for the Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Organization
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
This article aims to identify the communication processes existing between organizations and their workers with disabilities, discussing the importance of building accessible relationships and the role of communication in the inclusion of these subjects in the work environment. Given the importance of the subject of the social and professional development of people with disabilities and for the construction of a more inclusive society, a research is proposed that points out the contributions that a communication professional, especially in public relations, can bring as a result of the exercise of their activity in the process of inclusion of these subjects within the organizations. For the accomplishment of this work, a case study was developed with two organizations that already have inclusion programs established. From the results obtained, one can perceive the existence of spaces of social exclusion even in inclusive processes and the importance of the use of assistive solutions as tools that help the construction of accessible communication within the organizations, in order to provide greater professional development and of the subjects with disabilities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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