Disability as an enabler of career success and inclusion1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research regarding the career successcareer success of people with disabilities has made significant contributions to our understanding of barriers to inclusion. However, we find near silence on the subject of disability as an enabler of positive outcomes for both individuals and society more broadly. Drawing upon the affirmative model of disability, we suggest how the experience of disability can benefit career success and inclusion. The findings, based on interviews with 21 people with disabilities in Canada, suggest that disability can serve as ability (e.g., when the very impairment makes one the best suited for a task) and leads to inclusive organizational practices (e.g., by fostering opportunities for the busting of ability stereotypes). Taken together, the findings not only allow us to theorize disability as an enabler of career success under certain circumstances. We also offer practicable suggestions for policymakers to promote the right to inclusion and the career success of people with disabilities. In combination with medical and social perspectives on disability, the affirmative perspective that we explore here provides a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between disability policy, inclusion, and career success.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".