ACCOMMODATING DISABILITY IN THE WORKPLACE: THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of a qualitative field investigation of employer factors contributing to difficult disability accommodations in the workplace are reported. Arbitration cases and in-depth interviews are analyzed using grounded theory techniques. Four key variables emerged: managerial recalcitrance, accommodation investigation, disabled employee involvement, and organizational culture. Approximately 23 % of North Americans over the age of fifteen are limited in activities at home, work or school on a continuing basis lasting at least six months (Statistics Canada, 2000/01). The cause of the limitation may be due to a physical condition, mental impairment, learning disability or a combination of health problems. While younger workers are less likely to experience these difficulties, by the time North Americans retire at sixty-five the rate of disability is as high as 42 % (Statistics Canada, 2000/01). Individuals with disabilities are protected from discrimination by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). The law strives to ensure that disabled employees are protected, but it also asks employers to look beyond fitting someone who is different into a workplace made for the able-bodied. It asks us to rethink the processes of work in a way that ensures inclusion as
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 | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".