The influence of reasons for attending university on university experience: A comparison between students with and without disabilities
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
Students choose to go to university for many reasons. They include those with disabilities and those without. The reasons why students with disabilities go to university and how these reasons impact university experience, including coping (academic resourcefulness), adapting, academic ability beliefs (academic self-efficacy), and grades, are investigated. Results show that unlike non-disabled peers, first-year students with disabilities who go to university for internal reasons (e.g. for the challenge, because they like learning) show higher academic resourcefulness and self-efficacy, and that those disabled students who choose to go to university in order to get a better job show higher academic self-efficacy. Upper-year students with disabilities less often choose to go to university for others and in order to get a better job than counterparts without disabilities. Upper-year students with disabilities less often choose to go to university for the university features (e.g. student services) than first-year students with disabilities. Upper-year students with disabilities choosing to go to university in order to delay responsibilities are less adapted, and those choosing to go for the reason of getting a better job have lower grades. Recommendations on strategies to increase student coping and self-efficacy and the need for qualitative research are made.
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