A national census: state of disability services at historically black colleges and universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the composition and status of disability support services (DSS) among Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).A national census was conducted via the dissemination of a web-based self-report questionnaire to 103 designated DSS administrators.Data was collected to capture the institutional landscape and availability of accommodation provisions for students with disabilities (SWD).Procedures were executed to control for the primary four sources of error (coverage, sampling, measurement and nonresponse) relative to survey research.The two research questions posited were as follows: (1) What is the status and composition of support services for SWD at HBCUs? (2) How can services to SWD at HBCUs be developed and implemented?Analyses were guided by four primary research objectives that correspond to the research questions and produced results as follows: 1) A test of two proportion comparisons revealed significant differences in the organizational structure of DSS Offices and the variation in accommodation provisions.Results revealed a need for more centralized, formal DSS Offices and additional accommodation provisions.2) Data suggested that the general distribution of types of disabilities (self-disclosed) in the population of SWD within HBCUs varied substantially.Recently, the Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD) set forth program standards that represent fundamental expectations for postsecondary institutions that should be available to provide equal access for SWD (www.AHEAD.org,2003).These standards from AHEAD were identified in research involving over 1,000 postsecondary disability professionals as necessary regardless of the type of school (two-or four-year), funding sources (public or private), location (U.S. or Canada), or admissions policy (open enrollment or competitive).In spite of
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".