College Students with Disabilities Explain Challenges Encountered in Professional Preparation Programs
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
Throughout the United States, students with disabilities (SWD) are entering higher education in greater numbers than in the past; they also encounter barriers that negatively impact their college experience. This qualitative study explores the challenges of SWD at a public comprehensive college in the northeastern United States. Our research questions include the following: What are the internal and external challenges of college SWD in professional preparation programs? What might this mean for practice in higher education? In total, 541 participants completed an open-ended survey. Of this group, 45 participants disclosed having a disability, and 12 participated in follow-up interviews. Primary themes that emerged from this study include under- developed self-determination skills, lack of understanding (by SWD and faculty), the stigma associated with disabilities, and ineffective accommodations and support services. What follows is a review of relevant literature, discussion of findings, and presentation of implications for college SWD and professionals in higher education.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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