There Can Be No Single Approach for Supporting Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Academic Libraries, but Sensory-Friendly Spaces and Clear Policies May Help
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Anderson, A. (2018). Autism and the academic library: A study of online communication. College & Research Libraries, 79(5), 645-658. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.5.645 Abstract Objective – To investigate how people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) discuss their experiences in academic libraries in an online community of their peers. Design – Qualitative content analysis. Setting – Online discussion forum. Subjects – An unknown number of registered members of Wrong Planet (wrongplanet.net), who self-identify as having ASD and have posted about academic libraries on the public discussion board since 2004. Methods – Potentially relevant Wrong Planet public discussion board threads posted between 2004 and an undisclosed collection date were retrieved using an advanced Google search with the search strategy “library; librarian; lib; AND college; university; uni; campus” (p. 648). Each thread (total 170) was read in its entirety to determine its relevance to the study, and a total of 98 discussion threads were ultimately included in the analysis. Data were coded inductively and deductively, guided by the research questions and a conceptual framework which views ASD as being (at least partially) socially constructed. Coding was checked for consistency by another researcher. Main results – Wrong Planet members expressed a variety of views regarding the academic library’s physical environment, its resources, and the benefits and challenges of interacting socially within it. Many members discussed using the library as a place to escape noise, distraction, and social interaction, while other members expressed the opposite, finding the library, its resources, and its patrons to be noisy, distracting, and even chaotic. Social interaction in the library was seen both positively and negatively, with members appearing to need clearly defined rules regarding collaboration, noise, and behaviour in the library. Conclusion – While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to supporting students with ASD in academic libraries, the findings suggest it may be beneficial to provide sensory-friendly environments, designate defined spaces for quiet study and for collaboration, clearly state rules regarding noise and behaviour, and provide informal opportunities to socialize. The author also suggests libraries raise awareness of the needs of ASD students among the entire academic community by hosting events and seminars. The author plans to build on these findings by surveying and interviewing relevant stakeholders.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,029 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,028 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,067 | 0,026 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».