Five Windows and a Locked Door: University Accommodation Responses to Students with Anxiety Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing enrolments of post-secondary students with disabilities are resulting in accessibility services offices reaching capacity levels. This trend has created the ‘perfect storm’ in terms of meeting these students’ needs. While collaboration between accessibility services staff and professors seems a logical solution to maximizing resource management and ameliorating this issue, additional tensions arise when issues of fairness, authority, and roles come into play. Using the constructionist model of disability as a lens, I analyzed the viewpoints of faculty members and accessibility services staff members in order to contribute to our understanding about these tensions as well as to make recommendations for their resolution. Le nombre grandissant d’étudiants handicapés qui s’inscrivent au niveau post-secondaire a pour résultat que les bureaux offrant des services d’accessibilité atteignent les limites de leurs capacités. Cette tendance a créé une situation explosive pour ce qui est de répondre auxbesoins de ces étudiants. Alors que la collaboration entre le personnel des services d’accessibilité et les professeurs semblerait être une solution logique pour maximiser la gestion des ressources et améliorer ce problème, des tensions supplémentaires surviennent quand des questions d’équité, d’autorité et de rôles entrent en jeu. En me servant du modèle constructionniste du handicap comme une loupe, j’ai analysé les points de vue des professeurs et des employés des services d’accessibilité afin de faciliter notre compréhension de ces tensions et pour faire des recommandations en vue de trouver une solution.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 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 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".