MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W96167856 · doi:10.25071/1705-1436.107

Disability Disclosure in the Workplace

2006· article· en· W96167856 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJust Labour · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationDismissalReasonable accommodationWork (physics)Qualitative researchPublic relationsPsychologyPosition (finance)Social psychologyBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with workplace accommodation and the extent to which people feel able to disclose disabilities at work. Disclosure is central to accommodation in the sense that workers must feel comfortable describing their needs to employers. Where this is not the case - for example, where workers are concerned about the precariousness of their position and the fact that disclosure may result in dismissal - legal requirements for accommodation can be ineffective. To explore this issue, the paper uses qualitative data from interviews with fifty-nine people with physical, learning, psychiatric and sensory disabilities in the Hamilton labour market. Analysis indicates that most respondents viewed disclosure as a risky endeavour, and a significant minority did not disclose due to concerns about not being hired or being dismissed. The conclusion discusses the need for accommodating workplaces and the implications for the labour movement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.283 · 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