MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394714776 · doi:10.1007/s44202-024-00150-5

Autism spectrum disorder in the workplace: a position paper to support an inclusive and neurodivergent approach to work participation and engagement

2024· article· en· W4394714776 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathy Zhou, Bushra Binte Alam, Ali Bani‐Fatemi, Aaron Howe, Vijay Kumar Chattu, Behdin Nowrouzi‐Kia

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity Health NetworkLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsWork (physics)Position (finance)Work engagementAutism spectrum disorderInclusion (mineral)Position paperPsychologySpectrum (functional analysis)AutismSociologyComputer scienceDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyEngineeringBusinessWorld Wide WebPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Autistic individuals often experience a wide range of barriers and challenges with employment across their lifetime. Despite their strengths and abilities to contribute to the workforce, many individuals experience unemployment, underemployment and malemployment. However, current supports and services are often inadequate to meet their needs. To allow autistic people to achieve vocational success, we explore four contributors to employment and expand upon the issues and potential solutions to each. These positions include the importance of family support and its consideration in the application of vocational support interventions, addressing transitional needs for autistic youth, building employer capacity, and conducting research that advises the development of meaningful programs and policies. By advocating for these positions, we aim to foster greater inclusivity and support for individuals with ASD in the workplace.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover PsychologySame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207