MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060783747 · doi:10.1080/15017419.2010.540853

Examining the motivations of women students with disabilities' participation in university education in Kenya

2011· article· en· W2060783747 on OpenAlexaff
Bathseba Opini

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Disability Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKenyaPosition (finance)PsychologyHigher educationSociologyPublic relationsEconomic growthGender studiesPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses factors that influence women with disabilities in Kenya to pursue a university education. The paper draws on findings from a larger research project that studied the experiences of women students with disabilities in Kenyan universities. Findings show that the need to become economically independent, the desire to become a ‘somebody’, and the determination to challenge their subjugated position in society, with a view to rising above the prejudiced notions of ‘lack’, is central to the women's motivation to attend university. The paper shows that while some of the motivations of women with disabilities to go to university are similar to those of non-disabled individuals, women with disabilities have to struggle much harder to accomplish their goal because of societal barriers and prejudices towards people with disabilities. The success of the women in the study highlights the need for the society, families, governments, and friends to be more supportive and more systematic in ensuring that individuals with disabilities get the access and resources they need to attain their educational goals and dreams.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Disability ResearchSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207