The creation and implementation of an employment participation pathway model for youth with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Employment participation offers benefits including income, sense of accomplishment, social engagement, and meaningful contribution to society. Rates of competitive employment of youth with disabilities are amongst the lowest in society, despite having capacity and motivation to participate in the workplace. The marginalization of young workers with disability presents a lost opportunity for youth, potential employers, and social care systems. In order to engage young people with disabilities in employment, we present an integrated, community-based model for employment participation preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The employment participation pathway model is based on best available evidence and 15 years of program delivery for youth with disabilities preparing to transition out of school and into employment in the Canadian context. It was conceptualized using the Knowledge to Action framework and presented for consideration in the current paper. RESULTS: Starting early, taking a person-directed approach to planning, and considering the individual and our systems contribute to effective and comprehensive transition to employment. CONCLUSIONS: The employment participation model provides evidence and examples for service providers to consider integrating into their repertoire and begin to construct similar pathways to equip their clients and families with skills, capacities, and knowledge as they journey towards workplace participation.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONEmployment for individuals with disabilities is lower than the national average, with rates being even lower for young people (ages 15-25) with disabilities.Low workplace participation for individuals with disabilities is particularly troubling due to the myriad social and health benefits of engagement in employment.Programs that start early (during high school) and provide ongoing, community-integrated support are reported to be most beneficial to the eventual job attainment and retention for young job seekers with disabilities.The presented employment participation pathway model that was developed using the Knowledge to Action Framework integrates evidence and best practices to support service providers in facilitating progressive workplace participation for clients and families.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".