MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289920226 · doi:10.1177/13582291221115266

Supporting continued work under the UNCRPD – views of employees living with mild cognitive impairment or early onset dementia

2022· article· en· W4289920226 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katja Karjalainen, Mervi Issakainen, Marjo Ylhäinen, Sheida Marashi, Ann‐Charlotte Nedlund, Jennifer Boger, Arlene Astell, Anna Mäki‐Petäjä‐Leinonen, Louise Nygård

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Discrimination and the Law · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdCanadian HIV Trials Network, Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchAcademy of Finland
KeywordsCognitionFlexibility (engineering)Set (abstract data type)DementiaWork (physics)PsychologyLivelihoodSolidarityIndependent livingConventionGerontologyPolitical scienceLawMedicinePsychiatryManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports the results of a socio-legal investigation into how continued work among people living with progressive cognitive impairments such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early onset dementia (EOD) can be supported. This study that makes use of empirical data collected in Finland, Sweden and Canada seeks to give voice to people living with MCI or EOD and set their experiential knowledge in dialogue with equality rights related tools provided by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The results illustrate that there are effective tools available that remove barriers to participation and support continued work of employees living with cognitive impairments at least for some time while impairments are mild. Ideally, flexibility and solidarity in the workplace automatically eliminates the effects of individual impairment. However, cognitive impairments are often such that along with general accessibility measures individual accommodations are needed. Supporting continued work expands the freedom to continue meaningful work in the preferred manner and offers people the means to gain a livelihood and participate in society as a member of the work community on equal basis with others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Discrimination and the LawSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207