Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most industrialized countries, vocational success for people with a severe mental illness epresents tne key cornerstone of their recovery. Yet, the job tenure of people with mental disorders obtaining jobs through supported employment programs is often brief. Unsuitable job placements and frequent job losses or changes may be both demoralising and counter-productive to recovering. In this symposium, vocational programs and social firms from various countries and dedicated to people with a severe mental disorder will be presented to better understand the job tenure for people with severe mental disorders. This symposium consists of three presentations. Paper 1: What makes this a supportive workplace for me. Anne Williams, Carol Harvey & Ellie Fossey. This paper presents a qualitative study, in which employees in a social firm who experienced persisting mental ill-health spoke about the features of this workplace that they found supportive. Participants highlighted the social environment in the workplace, their work arrangements, and employment conditions as aspects of this social firm that particularly supported their job tenure. This study adds to the relatively limited evidence base about social firms. Strategies employers in social firms and other employment settings can apply to workplace design and evaluation, in order to create supportive employment opportunities for people with mental illnesses will be outlined. Paper 2: Job tenure of people with severe mental disorders registered in supported employment programs: The role of work accommodations. Marc Corbière, Patrizia Villotti, Tania Lecomte. People with a severe mental illness registered in supported employment programs (British Columbia, Canada) and recently employed were asked about the work accommodations implemented in their workplace to help them maintain their competitive employment. The Work Accommodation Inventory was administered by phone interview to assess the number and the type of work accommodations implemented. The implementation of specific work recommodations (e.g. time flexibility, and relation with the immediate superior) was significantly helpful for people with severe mental illness to maintain their competitive 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.154 | 0.039 |
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".