Online resources supporting workers with chronic episodic disabilities: an environmental scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research was to conduct an environmental scan describing publicly available resources focussed on working with an episodic disability and providing information and advice about communication and accommodation to support working people living with episodic disabilities. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted an environmental scan of English language, freely available, online resources relevant to episodic disabilities in the workplace. The authors used Google™ to conduct structured keyword searches. Resources were reviewed and data extracted about episodic health condition(s) addressed, intended audience(s), resource format and content about health, legal rights, workplace issues, and accommodation and communication needs. Findings Searches yielded 5,300 links to websites which was supplemented by 101 links identified by partners. Screening for relevance found 210 resources for which data were extracted. Of them, 158 addressed specific episodic disabilities or episodic disabilities generally. Most resources provided useful information addressing communication and accommodation of episodic disability. However, information specific to the episodic nature of disability was not consistently available. The resources generally lacked interactivity which could potentially limit users in applying the information to their personal circumstances. Practical implications The findings suggest there are good resources to help workers and managers/supervisors navigate accommodations for episodic disabilities. Research should aim to improve the interactivity of information to personalize resources to worker and workplace needs, as well as formally evaluate resources and their outcomes. Practitioners may wish to recommend resources that specifically address workplace challenges for their clients. Originality/value The authors believe this is one of few studies that examined publicly available resources relevant to working with episodic 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".