Utility of the workplace participation domain of the Youth and Young-adult Participation and Environment Measure (Y-PEM): Stakeholder’s perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessing workplace participation of people with disability using measures that can inform practice is vital. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of the Youth and young-adult Participation and Environment Measure’s (Y-PEM) Workplace Participation domain. METHOD: Four focus groups were conducted with 11 stakeholders from different employment-related settings. Open-ended questions regarding Y-PEM’s interpretation, meaning and relevance, drawing on elements of clinical utility, were used. Data were analyzed by two investigators using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Stakeholders’ experience in providing/receiving employment services varied (1– 16 years). Three themes emerged. The Y-PEM captures multiple factors in employment transition; it generates insights and sparks conversations to better appreciate and support individuals’ transitioning to employment. Y-PEM meets the need for tools to guide services of transitioning to employment as it is comprehensive in assessing participation and the environment, can provide a “snapshot” of where the young person is at in their transition, and serves different purposes. The tool provides a “piece of the pie” within this complex process and could be used in conjunction with other tools. CONCLUSION: Y-PEM was perceived as essential, comprehensive, and appropriate for use in clinical and employment-related service contexts to inform practice, and guide stakeholders’ decision-making in facilitating transitioning to employment.
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it