Sustainability of Disability-Related Services in Canada and Israel: Will the Real Universal Design Please Stand Up?
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
We have examined the sustainability of providing services for students with disabilities in higher education in Canada and Israel. The two countries differ in their approaches: Israel subscribes to the accommodations model of service delivery; Canada, to the universal design approach. Case examples of services to students with disabilities in Canada and Israel are used to illustrate these approaches in a descriptive, illustrative study of 214 students with disabilities in Israel and the 127 in Canada who self-reported a disability and who had or had not registered for disability-related services from their school. Contrary to expectation, the Canadian sample (universal design) had a larger proportion of students with disabilities registered for disability-related services than the Israeli sample (accommodations model). Moreover, in Israel, disability- related services were extended to more diverse populations. While the universal design model has the potential to enhance sustainability of disability-related services in higher education, this has yet to be demonstrated empirically. Recommendations for increasing sustainability through universal design 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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