Varieties of ‘new normal’: Employment experiences among youth with and without disabilities during the reopening stages of the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Working and volunteering in the reopening stages of the COVID-19 pandemic has looked different depending on the location, employment sector and nature of the job. Although researchers have begun exploring the impacts on adults, little is known about what the transition to a 'new normal' in the reopening stages has been like for youth, especially those with disabilities. OBJECTIVE: To explore and compare the experiences and perspectives of youth with and without disabilities who were working, volunteering or seeking work during the re-opening stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. METHODS: We used a qualitative design involving semi-structured interviews with 16 youth (seven with a disability, nine without), aged 15-29 (mean 22 years). Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified: (1) Mixed views on being onsite in the reopening stages; (2) Mixed views on remaining remote; (3) Hybrid model as the best of both worlds; (4) Mixed views on COVID-19 workplace safety in the reopening stages; and (5) Hopes, dreams and advice for the future. Apart from the first main theme, there were more similarities than differences between youth with and without disabilities. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights that youth encountered various work and volunteer arrangements during the reopening stages of the pandemic, and the personal preferences for particular models depend largely on their employment sector. The areas of agreement among youth highlight some longer-term impacts of the pandemic shutdowns and point to the need for greater mental health and career supports.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".