Exploring the employment experiences of young adults with multiple minoritized identities: A qualitative study focusing on race and non-apparent disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth with disabilities often encounter many challenges in securing employment. Although the common barriers that youth face are well documented, little is known about the experiences of youth who have multiple minoritized identities in finding and maintaining employment. Youth with disabilities who belong to racial minoritized groups may encounter ableism and racism and other forms of discrimination at work. Exploring the experiences of racial minoritized youth with non-apparent disabilities is important given the growing concern about social inequities that are linked to disadvantage and differential access to resources such as employment. We used a qualitative design involving semi-structured interviews with 19 youth (13 women, 3 non-binary, 3 men), aged 17-30 (mean 23.5 years). An inductive thematic analysis was applied to analyze the data. We identified the following themes: (1) challenges finding and maintaining employment; (2) the extent of safety and comfort with disclosing minoritized identities in the workplace (i.e., comfortable disclosing; uncomfortable disclosing; did not need to disclose and/or hiding identities); (3) workplace discrimination based on minoritized identities (i.e., ableism, racism, ableist racism, gendered ableism, racist and gendered ableism); (4) impact of discrimination (i.e., negative affective outcomes, social and work adjustment, impact on professional development) and coping strategies (i.e., advocacy, networking, peer support); and (5) advice for youth and employers. Our study highlights the extent of racism and ableism that racial minoritized youth with non-apparent disabilities experience in the workplace and the importance of rehabilitation clinicians supporting their inclusion.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".