The Ontario Disability Support Program Work Exit Process: Parallels to a Hostage Negotiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a lack of empirical data on the experiences of people with mental illness (PMI) who transition from welfare to work and how policy programs are designed to facilitate this outcome. We explore the factors that facilitate or hinder PMI from exiting disability income support programs in Ontario, Canada. Drawing on a grounded theory approach, we examine the process of exiting the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with current and former recipients with mental illness, service providers who support current and former recipients, and ministry staff. A metaphor for the work exit process emerged with four embedded themes: (a) picking yourself back up, (b) breaking the rules to get ahead, (c) stabilizing illness for employment success, and (d) displaying resiliency and resourcefulness for successful exits. The main finding is that system supports are not the determining factors in a successful transition. Rather, participants describe how recipients exit for employment by leveraging personal resources to successfully transition off income support benefits. A system redesign is needed to address the inherent tension between social and health programs if the policy intent is to promote successful welfare-to-work transitions for PMI.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".