MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390103169 · doi:10.3233/wor-230018

Towards identifying gaps in employment integration of people living with vision impairment: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4390103169 on OpenAlexaff
Tosin Omonye Ogedengbe, Mahadeo A. Sukhai, Walter Wittich

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsCNIB FoundationUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisVisual impairmentPerceptionPsychologyWork (physics)Focus groupPublic relationsApplied psychologyBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyQualitative researchMarketingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The high rate of unemployment among individuals with vision impairment remains a pressing issue, even with the implementation of disability laws and coordinated effort to foster inclusive workplace. Employment integration challenges persist for people with vision impairment due to inaccessible job markets and workplaces. Objective: To create new knowledge from previous studies related to employment among people with vision impairment and to understand what has been explored and identify the gaps in employment integration. Method: A comprehensive search of six databases was conducted utilizing both index terms and keywords. The title and abstract of identified studies were screened, followed by a full-text screening using pre-set criteria. Only available peer-reviewed studies with a focus on employment and vision impairment were included, irrespective of location and publication year. Result: Of 2264 studies screened, only 43 studies were eligible for review and data extraction. Using thematic analysis, 8 key themes emerged: social support, disability rights and service systems, transition strategies and challenges, career, employment integration, employment environment, adaptive potential, and employment sustainability. These studies considered the perspectives of people living with vision impairment, rehabilitation practice, and employers. Identified gaps include transition strategies, workplace participation, the perception of colleagues, and work evolution. Conclusion: The primary focus of studies was on the individual factors that impact workplace integration; work environment impact was not explored in depth. The need to examine the readiness of the work environment is also importance because environmental factors can be modified according to the functional needs of people with vision impairment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207