MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1888908680 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v33i3.183441

Canadian Postsecondary Students With Disabilities: Where Are They?

2003· article· en· W1888908680 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine S. Fichten, Jennison V. Asuncicion, Maria Barile, Chantal Robillard, Myrtis E. Fossey, Daniel Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalConcordia UniversityMcGill UniversityDawson CollegeJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostsecondary educationGovernment (linguistics)Higher educationPopulationPsychologyLearning disabilityMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceDemographySociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results of a Canada-wide and a Quebec based study of students with a variety of disabilities in Canadian postsecondary education are presented. Study 1 involved 156 professionals. They represent 80% of the population of professionals who provide on-campus disability support services. Results indicate that (1) 8% of postsecondary institutions reported not having any students with disabilities, (2) overall, 2% of students are registered to receive disability related services from their post- secondary institutions, and (3) this varies from 1/2% to 6% across the country. Junior/community colleges had a higher percentage of students with disabilities registered to receive disability related services (3 3/4%) than universities (1 2/3%). (4) Distance education had 3%. (5) Quebec has a smaller proportion of both college (2/3% vs 6%) and university (1/2%) vs 2 1/2%) students with disabilities than the rest of Canada. A targeted study involving 46 professionals who provide disability related services in Quebec's public junior/community colleges, the CEGEPs, revealed that lack of recognition of learning disabilities for postsecondary funding by the Quebec government is an important contributor to the small percentages, although it cannot explain the huge discrepancies between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Extrapolation suggests that there are over 100,000 students with disabilities currently enrolled in Canadian postsecondary education, although only 1/4 to 1/2 of them register to receive disability related services.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Higher EducationSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207