A comparative study of adults with and without self‐reported learning disabilities in six English‐speaking populations: What have we learned?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare adults with and without self-reported learning disabilities (SRLD and NSRLD) from six English-speaking populations including: English-speaking Canada, Great Britain, The Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, and the United States. These six populations were selected because they were all English-speaking populations, participated in the first administration of the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), and included the optional questions regarding the presence of a disability. In this study, we compared the groups on prevalence by population, percentage of each group by age and gender, awareness of learning disabilities and problems in school, document and quantitative literacy proficiency, educational attainment, reasons for dropping out of school, and employment, occupational and financial status. Findings were reported among these six populations within an historical perspective including differences in awareness and definition of learning disabilities, public policy, special education services, reading pedagogy, and teacher preparation. Recommendations are made for improving literacy and long-term outcomes for those with learning disabilities in all nations as well as future research directions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it