Employment opportunities and job accessibility of disabled persons: an analysis of the law and practice in selected jurisdictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general, employers are not keen to hire or retain persons with disabilities by giving various reasons. On the other hand, it is a universally recognised principle that all persons must be given equal opportunity to engage in gainful employment and this should include the disable persons. In view of that many jurisdictions across the globe passed legislations to ensure the employment of persons with disabilities and protect them from discrimination on the grounds of their disabilities in employment. Accordingly, this paper aims at evaluating the employment opportunities and job accessibility available to disabled persons mainly under Malaysian laws and briefly in selected jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) and Canada. It is found that albeit the Malaysian Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 advocates for better employment opportunities and accessibility of disabled employees, the Act however have not adopted words such as ‘discriminate’ or ‘protection of persons with disability against discrimination’. Therefore, it is proposed that there is a need to legislate a workplace discrimination law which should prohibit inter alia, discrimination against the disabled persons either when seeking employment or in the workplace. In addition, there is an urgent need to amend art 8(2) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution, firstly, to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the grounds of disability, and secondly, to extend its application to employees in all sectors regardless of whether it is public and private sector. Finally, it is suggested that the Malaysian government should initiate Wage Subsidy Programs to encourage the employment of persons with disability
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".