Employment practices as experienced by persons with intellectual disability, employers, and employment specialists across Canada
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: Rates of un- and under-employment are high among persons with intellectual disabilities in Canada. More information is needed to better understand how current employment practices are experienced by persons with intellectual disabilities and those who hire and support them. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory and descriptive study sought to learn about employment practices as experienced by self-advocates with intellectual disabilities, employers, and employment specialists; to identify key barriers and facilitators to equitable inclusion of persons with intellectual disabilities in attaining and maintaining paid and competitive employment. METHODS: An online survey invited participants from all three groups to share their experiences and descriptive analysis was conducted to offer a summary of patterns across participant experiences. RESULTS: 149 participants (77 employment specialists, 59 self-advocates, and 13 employers) from across Canada participated in the survey and shared information about their experiences across recruitment, hiring, integration, and performance management of persons with intellectual disabilities. CONCLUSION: This study offers information about employment practices in Canada that directly impact the experiences of potential or current employees with intellectual disabilities. The findings may be used to inform the development of employment standards, best practices, and/or future research to improve disability-inclusive 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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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