MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394689212 · doi:10.3389/forgp.2024.1328559

Neurotype and participatory autism knowledge predict perceptions of an autistic employee in the workplace

2024· article· en· W4394689212 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn A. Szechy, Lisa O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Organizational Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersWayne State University
KeywordsAutismCitizen journalismPerceptionPsychologyCognitive psychologyApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceNeuroscienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Autistic adults are unemployed at much higher rates than the general population. Differences due to autistic traits, including social skills differences, are often barriers to autistic adults obtaining and retaining employment in non-autistic workplaces. The double empathy problem (DEP) posits that autistic social differences are not due to assumed autistic social impairment but to mutual misunderstandings within the autistic/non-autistic social interaction. Consistent with the DEP, autistic adults are more likely to accurately interpret the behavior of an autistic employee, compared to non-autistic adults. This study examined additional factors, beyond neurotype, that are associated with accurate interpretation of the behavior of an autistic employee. Methods A sample of 73 autistic and 140 non-autistic participants read a vignette about a hypothetical autistic employee in a non-autistic workplace having a difficult workday. Participants completed questions about their interpretation of the employee's behavior, an autism knowledge measure, autism experience questions, and demographic information. Results General autism knowledge, but not autism experience, was an influential predictor of accurate behavior interpretation toward the autistic employee and negated the predictive influence of education level, income, and gender identity of participants (OR = 1.12, p < 0.001). However, regardless of the level of autism knowledge, autistic participants continued to be significantly more likely to accurately interpret the behavior of the autistic employee, compared to non-autistic participants (OR = 2.94, p = 0.02). Discussion Results continue to contribute support for the DEP within the context of autistic employment challenges. Findings also point to autism education as a promising autism workplace support in addressing the DEP and barriers autistic adults face with obtaining and retaining 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Organizational PsychologySame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207