A multi-perspective examination of the barriers to field-placement experiences for students with disabilities
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
In light of the innumerable changes in post-secondary environments that reflect a movement toward inclusive education and a reliance on real-world evaluations in the form of field placements, we report on our findings from a collaborative research project that examines field placement experiences from a variety of perspectives. Our research project, prompted by our own observations of the barriers to equity for field placement students with disabilities at our institution, is an attempt to reflect on our disability service and our teaching and learning practices. We expanded on the traditional focus in the field by creating a multi-dimensional cross-sector collaboration and by including the perspectives of Professional Program Directors, Field Placement Coordinators, and students with disabilities. We found that all stakeholders reported barriers to success in field placement for students with disabilities, saw few solutions, and anticipated the barriers to continue into the world of employment. We discuss these findings in relation to the implications for teaching and learning and for disability service provision in post-secondary 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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