Experiences of Unemployed Black People Living with Disabilities in Soshanguve Township, South Africa - An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The promise of a better life for all made by the South African government in 1994 remains unfulfilled, as many South Africans are still living in the margins of the economy where unemployment and poverty are rampant. People living with disabilities (PLWDs) are the worst affected, as they are poor with no access to jobs and housing. Despite the enactment of the Employment Equity Act (EEA) Number 55 of 1988, employment opportunities for black PLWDs are scarce in South Africa. This is due to, among other reasons, the fact that employers are reluctant to employ disabled people. This narrative study examined the experiences of black people living with disabilities (PLWDs) in Soshanguve Township, Tshwane, South Africa. It employed the symbolic interactionist (SI) theory as a lens to gain insights into the experiences of black women and men living with disabilities in their quest to access employment opportunities. The study was exploratory qualitative in nature and employed the case study design approach. Data were collected using a purposive sample of 15 black men and women living with disabilities in the Soshanguwe Township with whom in-depth interviews were conducted. This was complemented by focus group interviews with 13 purposively selected respondents who met the selection criteria. Findings were that people living with disabilities (PLWDs) were discriminated against and marginalised in employment and the workplace before and after post–apartheid South Africa. This situation leaves them inactive, economically disadvantaged and poor. The study expands knowledge on the experiences of black men and women who live with disabilities, thereby contributing towards the design of public policies and other social security interventions meant to alleviate the plight of marginalised communities in general and people living 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".