Multiple Perspectives on the Accessibility of E-Learning in Canadian Colleges and Universities
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
An exploratory study identified and compared the views of 77 campus disability service providers, 38 professors, and 45 e-learning professionals from Canadian colleges and universities regarding their experiences with e-learning and its accessibility to students with disabilities. Findings indicate that all groups saw benefit in having someone who makes e-learning accessible to students with disabilities on campus and that problems related to e-learning accessibility were most likely to go to campus disability service providers and least likely to e-learning professionals. Only half of the participants indicated that professors are taught about e-learning accessibility, that there is someone on campus who makes e-learning accessible, that accessibility is a criterion for selecting new types of e-learning, and that their school has e-learning accessibility guidelines or policies. These findings suggest that important e-learning accessibility problems remain. Recommendations for colleges and universities on how to increase e-learning accessibility are provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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