MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034084907 · doi:10.1177/000841740006700311

Accommodation Needs and Student-Environment Fit in Upper Secondary Schools for Students with Severe Physical Disabilities

2000· article· en· W2034084907 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Helena Hemmingsson, Lena Borell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsAccommodationPsychologyReasonable accommodationSpecial needsMedical educationOccupational therapyTRIPS architecturePerspective (graphical)Reading (process)Person–environment fitPedagogyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to identify, from the personal perspective of students with disability, their needs for physical and social accommodations in upper secondary schools specially adapted for students with severe physical disabilities. The study also aimed to identify those areas of student-environment fit which were most often achieved. Forty-eight students in four schools in Sweden were assessed by occupational therapists using the School Setting Interview. Forty-seven students reported needs for accommodations in the school setting. The study indicates that schools generally were able to meet the students' accommodation needs in the physical environment. The schools also met students' accommodation needs for field trips, sport activities and assistance. Student-environment fit in occupations requiring reading, remembering and speaking was unsatisfactory. Accommodations on a general, group and individual level are highlighted and discussed. The study recommends that occupational therapists become more involved and offer society their expertise in barrier removal to a greater extent.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations33
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207