Integration of students with physical impairment in Canadian university rehabilitation sciences programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was two-fold. First, it sought to determine if Canadian rehabilitation science programs are equipped to admit students with physical impairments and, second, to document the experience of these students. A survey (questionnaire) conducted among all Canadian university rehabilitation science programs (n=34) and interviews with students with physical impairments (n=3) from one university help better delineate this problem. Twenty-three programs completed the survey. Of these, 21 (91%) rehabilitation science programs have admitted students with a variety of physical impairments. Programs have access to their university's Special Service Center to help answer the needs of these students. Strategies have been developed to overcome the difficulties encountered and to meet the programs' requirements. Canadian university rehabilitation science programs seem well equipped to facilitate the integration of individuals with physical impairments. Students report a positive university experience; however, they voice several recommendations to smooth the integration process. Although significant efforts have been made to facilitate the integration process of students with physical limitations, adjustments are still warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".