Les accommodements pour les étudiants en situation de handicap dans l’enseignement supérieur : ce que les professeurs en pensent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les Étudiants en situation de handicap (ESH), notamment ceux faisant partie de la catégorie dite émergente, sont de plus en plus nombreux à poursuivre des études universitaires, ce qui amène plusieurs professeurs à se questionner sur les mesures d’accommodement à leur offrir. Afin de bien cerner ce questionnement provenant de nombreux professeurs, nous avons effectué une consultation visant à identifier leurs préoccupations à l’égard des accommodements les plus fréquemment offerts. Cet article porte sur les résultats de cette consultation à laquelle ont participé 159 professeurs. Globalement, il ressort que plusieurs d’entre eux manifestent des préoccupations relatives à la tension entre ces accommodements et le respect des exigences des cours ainsi qu’une méconnaissance des besoins des étudiants et du processus de mise en place de ces accommodements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".