Heidi's and Philip's stories: transitions to post‐secondary education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary In this article, the formative childhood and adolescent experiences of two young adults with learning disabilities, leading to their transitions from high school to university, are chronicled. Their university studies, as auditing students,1 and the Campus Life program2 through which their studies were supported, also are described. Finally, their recommendations to other young people with learning disabilities who aspire to higher education are detailed. Benefits to people with Learning Disabilities: It is always important to hear, and help others hear, the voices, thoughts and perspectives of people with learning disabilities, especially with respect to what they think contributes to a good life. This is the story of two young adults with learning disabilities, Heidi and Philip, studying at an advanced level, deciding on real careers and, in the process, helping the university to redefine its role in the community. Summary Building a meaningful and valued life for individuals with learning disabilities requires the sustained, diligent and coordinated efforts of family members, supporters, educators and the individuals themselves. In this article, the formative childhood and adolescent experiences of two young adults with learning disabilities, leading to their transitions from high school to university, are chronicled. As co‐authors with three of their university supporters, they describe their formative experiences in elementary and secondary school and the transition years that preceded university entry. Their university studies, as auditing students, and the Campus Life program, through which their studies were supported, also are described. Finally, their recommendations to other young people with learning disabilities who aspire to higher education are detailed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".