Motherhood, Disability, and Employment: Understanding the Workplace Experiences of Mothers of Children With Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the workplace experiences of mothers of children with intellectual disabilities. These mothers may face challenges in balancing motherhood, parenting a child with a disability, and employment. Therefore, it is important to understand the challenges they are facing and the mechanisms they use to cope with caregiving and work responsibilities in managing the stress that develops throughout this ongoing experience. The purpose of this research was to investigate the workplace experiences of single mothers of children with intellectual disabilities. A review of the literature was conducted. For this research, a qualitative methodology was adopted to gain an in-depth understanding of the mothers’ experiences. A qualitative method was used for data collection. Thematic analysis was utilized to obtain a clear understanding. The findings suggest that mothers of children with intellectual disabilities face difficulties in balancing caregiving for their child with a disability and their job responsibilities, in addition to showing that there is a lack of flexibility in the workplace, less awareness from colleagues and supervisors of the challenges these mothers face, and a lack of organizational legislation that supports these mothers. According to our findings, workplaces would assist mothers of children with intellectual disabilities to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in their 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".