MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7053424601

Understanding the Barriers and Supports of Inclusive Employment for Adults with Intellectual/ Developmental Disabilities

2020· other· en· W7053424601 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryInclusion (mineral)PerceptionQualitative researchAffordancePerspective (graphical)Corporate social responsibility
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, people with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD) have been marginalized in Ontario. One way to promote community integration, inclusion and belonging for adults with IDD is through paid employment. The purpose of this study is: (1) to gain insight into agreements and discrepancies between employees with IDD and employers on their employment experiences, and (2) to use these results to examine what the potential consistencies, inconsistencies, affordances and constraints are when employing a person with IDD and being an employee with IDD. The study was done using grounded theory and its qualitative analysis process and was approached through a constructivist orientation. The research questions are: (1) What are the consistencies and inconsistencies between employees with IDD and inclusive employers’ perceptions of hiring someone with IDD? (2) How open are businesses who claim corporate social responsibility due to hiring people with IDD? (3) What does meaningful employment mean to employees with IDD and inclusive employers? Three employees with IDD and three employers were interviewed using a semi-structured format. The two main findings from each group are: (1) Employees described their job experiences in terms of stressors, enhancers, and joys and benefits. (2) Employers’ experience was described in terms of awareness of supports, benefits, and advocacy; and attitudes towards employees. The results included that employees with IDD and employers displayed consistencies (stressful situations, benefits and enhancers on the job and valued punctuality) and inconsistencies (based on skills and co-worker relations). Businesses who claim corporate social responsibility and display authentic, anti-tokenistic behaviours are more likely to hire more adults with IDD in the workplace. Finally, meaningful employment is subjectively understood, but is consistent amongst employees with IDD and inclusive employers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)→Same topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research→French-language works237,207→