Like fire to water: building bridging collaborations between Disability service providers and course instructors to create user friendly and resource efficient UDL implementation material
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a post-secondary campus` experience with systematic and global promotion of Universal Design for Learning. It analyzes data collected over a 24 months period, relating to course instructors’ responses to the framework, through the lens of the initial hypothesis that successes and failures in adoption might be explained by the existence of variables that act as facilitators or stressors in the eyes of the participants. It is argued that identifying these variables allows campuses to map winning conditions for the rapid adoption of UDL by course instructors, irrespective of institutional context and resources. Importantly the study highlights that the full identification of these factors requires the involvement and collaboration of not simply the disability service provider, but also the Teaching and Learning support unit and the equity and diversity office. The study argues that such a collaboration model is transferable to other institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it