Beyond transition: A comparison of the employment experiences of American and Canadian adults with learning disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the United States and the Canadian Chartre of Rights and Freedoms, there is a new work environment for individuals with learning disabilities (LD) in North America. This qualitative study sought to compare the employment experiences of 25 U.S. adults with LD and 24 Canadian adults with LD. Areas of comparison were job getting, experiences on the job, and job advancement. Remarkably, the U.S. and Canadian adults with LD had nearly the same employment experiences. In essence, each set of data mirrored the other despite marked differences in U.S. and Canadian federal disability legislation. Beyond the K–12 years and thepreparation for transition lies anentire lifetime of work for indi-viduals with learning disabilities (LD). Yet the literature of transition rarely informs us about the realities of the workplace. It is fraught with generic considerations for individuals with disabilities with “wide brushstrokes” and rarely is nuanced with disability-specific information. For people with LD, who are largely destined for com-petitive employment, the stories of success and failure, trials and tribula-tions seldom become known. Only a few in-depth studies have rightly de-scribed the LD employment experi-ence beyond transition (Gerber, 1992a, 1992b, 1998) for those who represent the continuum of severity of LD in adulthood (Gerber & Reiff, 1991) and for those who have become very suc-cessful despite their LD (Gerber, Gins-berg, & Reiff, 1992; Reiff, Gerber &
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".