A comparative study of adults with and without self‐reported learning disabilities in six English‐speaking populations: What have we learned?
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".