MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155874424 · doi:10.5206/eei.v20i1.7654

Information and Communication Technology for French and English Speaking Postsecondary Students with Disabilities: What are Their Needs and How Well are These Being Met?

2010· article· en· W2155874424 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine S. Fichten, Mai Nhu Nguyen, Jennison V. Asuncion, Maria Barile, Jillian Budd, Rhonda Amsel, Eva Libman

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality Education International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityQuebec Rehabilitation Research NetworkDawson CollegeJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInformation and Communications TechnologyContext (archaeology)Scale (ratio)Sample (material)Medical educationPedagogyMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates how well information and communication technology (ICT) related needs of students with various disabilities are met at school, at home, and in e-learning contexts. Results are based on the POSITIVES Scale, a 26 item ob-jective measure of how well the ICT related needs of these students are met. The sample consists of 131 students from French and 1202 students from English lan-guage universities and junior/community colleges with various disabilities from across Canada. Although the results generally show more favourable than unfa-vourable scores, these are affected by the nature of students’ disabilities and by context: home or school. Generally, both groups had similar views about cir-cumstances where their needs were poorly met and about what worked well. The findings suggest that linguistic and policy considerations have an impact on how well the ICT related needs of students with different disabilities are met in differ-ent parts of Canada.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExceptionality Education InternationalSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207