Regulating the Employment of People with Disabilities – Does the strict quota system bring real results?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Act on Promoting Employment (IV of 1991) employers of all segments of economy are obliged to pay rehabilitation fee in case the average number of their employees is above 20 and the ratio of employees with disabilities does not reach 5%. The amount to be paid has been significantly changed from 177 600 HUF/year to 964 500 HUF/year as of 1st of January, 2010 in order to raise efficiency. A lot more companies have decided not to pay the rehabilitation fee rather employ people with disabilities than it was expected. Last year instead of employing more than 84 thousand the fee was paid. This ratio has significantly fallen in the first quarter of 2010: after only 19 thousand employees have the companies paid the rehabilitation fee. My research discovers how agricultural and food industry companies have reacted to the increased rehabilitation fee. Does the decrease in the amount of fee paid mean increase in the employment of people with disabilities? What solutions do companies have in place?
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".