Exploring the employment experiences of adults with autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is room for increased exploration into the needs of adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), specifically in the area of employment. This study explored the employment experiences of adults with ASD as perceived by both parents of adult children with ASD and adults with ASD. The qualitative data gained in this study highlighted a number of themes derived from interviews with parents of adult children with ASD and adults with ASD, themes including ‘Communication’, ‘Economic Considerations’, ‘Education’, ‘Consistency’, and ‘Barriers.’ These themes highlighted common issues experienced by parents of adult children with ASD and adults with ASD in Newfoundland and Labrador. Adults with ASD made many positive comments about their current employment situations and personal support systems. On the other hand most participants expressed dissatisfaction with autism related training programs, the education level and skill set of support workers and employers specifically tasked with providing employment support to adults with ASD, and the amount of funding available for quality programs. Further research should explore employers and support workers perspectives on this topic as well as transition programs to better inform ways to support individuals with autism in the workforce.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".