‘They don't think I can do it’: Experiences of <scp>self‐advocates</scp>, employment specialists, and employers on employment of adults with intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A multi-phase Canadian study was conducted as part of a large-scale community and academic research partnership focused on understanding and improving the employment experiences of people with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: This multi-method study utilized a sequential approach, using findings from qualitative interviews (n = 28) to inform an online survey (n = 149). Participants were invited to share their experiences with paid employment or with persons with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of data across interview and survey findings resulted in six themes: (1) assumptions and attitudes, (2) knowledge and awareness, (3) accessibility of processes, (4) use of accommodations, (5) workplace relationships, and (6) supports and resources. CONCLUSIONS: A holistic and systemic approach has the potential to improve inclusive employment experiences of people with intellectual disabilities. Action is needed mainly at the policy and employer level to reduce barriers and improve on facilitating measures reinforced by the themes shared in this study.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".