University Students with Disabilities: The Transition to Inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant amount of research has been conducted on issues surrounding persons with disabilities. However, there has been a lack of research regarding university students with disabilities and the transition process into university life. The purpose of this study was to report on the findings of a qualitative examination of how a small group of first-year students with disabilities integrated into the life of a large Canadian university in south western Ontario. The paper considered how certain factors, such as the use of services available to persons with disabilities, as well as recreation and leisure participation, influenced the students' overall transition and inclusion into university life. The research questions the study sought to answer were firstly, how do the university services assist students with disabilities in the transition and integration into university life; and secondly, what is the role of recreation and leisure in facilitating the integration into university life? In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with four female students, affiliated with the university's Services for Students with Disabilities, during their first year of university. The experiences of the women who participated in this study suggested that “becoming a part of campus life” and “goal achievement” were two principal patterns which were common to their transition into the university community. The analysis of the findings concluded that aspects of university life, including support services, opportunities for leisure, and peer support, can all play an integral role in a student's successful transition into the university community. Through these services and activities, it is suggested that persons with disabilities exhibit more confidence in their abilities, are better adapted, and generally feel more comfortable within the university milieu.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".