MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4246092239 · doi:10.46692/9781447318354.012

Thinking differently about ‘work’ and social inclusion for disabled people

2015· other· en· W4246092239 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward Hall, Robert Wilton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)PsychologyWork (physics)SociologySocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Paid employment is the primary marker of social exclusion and inclusion in Western neoliberal states, including the two nations – Britain and Canada (Roulstone and Prideaux, 2012) – that we focus on in this chapter. Those not in receipt of income from work and reliant on welfare benefits, including disabled people, are being placed under increasing pressure to participate in state programmes of ‘reactivation’ to move from welfare into employment, as part of a broader transformation of the welfare state and government budget cuts (see, for example, Duncan Smith, 2014, in Britain). For some disabled people (in particular, those already in some form of work, or with higher skill levels and experience), there are new opportunities for access into and maintenance of employment. For many, however, gaining access to, and staying in, paid employment is extremely challenging. There are numerous barriers to employment for disabled people, including: • a lack of qualifications and experience; • attitudes of employers; • absence of adequate support from agencies; • physical access to the workplace; • a lack of appropriate job opportunities (Thornton, 2009; Crawford, 2012). People can also face difficulties at work that include: • the attitudes of fellow employees and supervisors; • expectations in terms of behaviour and appearance; • pay and conditions, including hours and flexibility (Roulstone et al, 2003; Wilton, 2004). For these reasons, the proportion of disabled people in paid employment has plateaued at a level far below that for non-disabled people. Furthermore, as austerity measures tighten, many disabled people are finding themselves in a double bind. They are unable to secure a paid job and are denied adequate benefit payments to support themselves, with a resultant decline in wellbeing. Moreover, the rhetoric of welfare reform in both Britain and Canada is becoming increasingly sharp. In Britain, popular and political discourses increasingly contrast those understood as ‘strivers’ (who take an active approach to gaining employment) with those seen as ‘skivers’ (in receipt of welfare benefits, and who make little effort to find work). The Canadian landscape is more uneven because social welfare is a provincial policy matter, but there too there has been a prevailing trend towards emphasising individual responsibility and (a lack of) motivation, while downplaying the ‘complex and deeply-rooted social and systemic inequalities’ that shape the employment prospects of disabled people (see Gewurtz et al, 2014, p 1; also Prince, 2012).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.029
Scholarly communication0.0160.010
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→