Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to describe an experiential learning activity designed to sensitize students to the prevalence and challenges of disclosing invisible disabilities in the workplace. It provides an impactful learning experience about a widespread phenomenon that receives little attention in textbooks. Design/methodology/approach The exercise assigns a hidden disability to some participants who interact with others who act as trusted friends. The interactions help participants develop their ability to interact sensitively with those who may have hidden disabilities. They explore the advantages and disadvantages of disclosing hidden disabilities at work. Guiding questions help focus deliberations during which participants consider the influence of their assigned role. Findings A plenary discussion follows where students share the outcomes of the simulation. Debriefing questions and suggested answers help instructors deepen student learning on the topic. A follow-up assignment allows participants to summarize personal learning about the subject and solidify the learning outcomes. Originality/value Most workers with nonapparent disabilities hide them, although disclosing them may help their employers provide helpful accommodations. This learning activity helps increase awareness and understanding of hidden disabilities in work settings and supports learning about disclosing and accommodating disabilities in the workplace. Instructors can use the activity to support understanding of employee rights, equity and accommodations in large or small classes, in-person or online, synchronously or asynchronously.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".