Attained and Retained Employment of Employees with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employment is a critical component of health and well-being as it has been shown to increase income, reduce poverty, establish social networks, and provide a greater sense of purpose and value within society. People with disabilities have higher rates of unemployment as compared to non-disabled people and experience many barriers to employment, including stigma, attitudes towards disabilities, and perceived costs of accommodation. There is limited research that looks at what has helped to facilitate employment, particularly retained employment, for this population. Therefore, understanding factors that have served to facilitate retained employment for those with disabilities is critical in understanding how people have overcome these barriers and how they can be addressed going forward. The current study was conducted using a scientific realism ontology and semi-structured in-depth interviews with nine participants with intellectual and developmental disabilities that had retained paid employment at a single company for at least one year and five parents of the aforementioned participants to develop a comprehensive understanding of how, why and under what circumstances retained employment outcomes were facilitated. Findings highlighted that vocationally oriented objectives in school, co-op and volunteer experiences, effective job coach and social service support, workplace accommodations, supportive employers and co-workers, being valued as an employee, strong job-to-person fit, and relevant skills development (e.g., teamwork, communication, confidence) facilitate getting and retaining employment. The study also found notable barriers to getting and retaining employment, including perceived attitudes towards disabilities, ineffective employment services and support, and lack of accommodations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".