(dis)Ability and Postsecondary Education: One Woman's Experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The storied experiences of a (dis)Abled student negotiating postsecondary education in Canada are highlighted within this article, including advocacy strategies and a critique of related policies. Persons with (dis)Abilities are a particularly marginalized population, traditionally excluded from society, with modern day views of pity or heroics (MacDonald & Friars, 2009). While society has made strides in reducing explicit oppression faced by (dis)Abled persons, covert oppressions persist. Pervasive negative assumptions continue to exist about (dis)Abled people and have led to the propagation of policies that inhibit (dis)Abled people from engaging with society, including being part of the university system. Through a storying process, numerous barriers to accessible postsecondary education will be exposed. Universities are the “think tanks” of tomorrow, a place where critical thought is encouraged and “thinking outside the box” is welcomed. Postsecondary institutions have an opportunity to truly effect change, to pave the way to a barrier free zone, one that is truly accessible structurally and intellectually, providing a welcoming and safe learning environment for (dis)Abled students. Through storying the experiences of one (dis)Abled student, it is hoped that the reader’s consciousness will be raised, barriers to postsecondary education will be better understood and ultimately, fully accessible education can be envisioned.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".