Effects of the Learning Opportunities Task Force (LOTF) Programs on Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of participation in the Learning Opportunities Task Force (LOTF) programs on postsecondary students with learning disabili-ties (LDs). Data regarding 969 students from 6 colleges and 4 universities in Ontario were evaluated to investigate rates of academic success and increased self-awareness. Participants had a significantly lower rate of failure or drop out compared with the national average. Comparison of pre- and post-participation data from 450 of these students demonstrated improved understanding of their own LD, ability to explain their disability to others, and ability to self-advocate following participation in the LOTF programs. Overall, the majority of partici-pants reported that participation in the LOTF program contributed significantly to their academic success and would participate again in such a program. Inten-sive learning supports during the first year of postsecondary studies like those provided by LOTF may increase retention rates and improve key skills for those with LD.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".