Students with disabilities participating in mainstream schools: policies that promote and limit teacher and therapist cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines participatory arrangements for students with physical disabilities in mainstream education, cooperation between teachers and therapists to ensure that these arrangements are efficient and the organizational prerequisites for such cooperation. The study comprises data obtained from 14 ‘groups’, with each group consisting of a student with physical disabilities aged 9–19 years, their main teacher and the relevant therapists from the local habilitation centre. Data were collected through semi‐structured interviews, field observations and a review of relevant documents, including legislation. The results reveal a lack of cooperation between teacher and therapist which results in students with disabilities receiving suboptimal participatory arrangements in school. Differences in the perspectives of the teachers and therapists and in the way they act and perceive their responsibilities were anchored in institutional and societal documents and the distribution of resources. The implications for students with disabilities are discussed.
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 | 0.051 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".