Inclusive Higher Education for Students with Disabilities in China: What Do the University Teachers Think?
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
Inclusive higher education is a path to protect the educational rights of university students with disabilities. University teachers’ attitudes toward students with disabilities, and towards their inclusion in universities, are a key factor that will affect the development of inclusive higher education. This study used a questionnaire to explore an overall perspective of how university teachers in China view inclusive higher education from emotional, cognitional and conative aspects. Their responses suggest that university teachers in China have positive emotion and cognition toward the rights of students with disabilities to receive higher education; the teachers do, however, appear to lack motivation, relevant knowledge, skills, and effective strategies to cope with the students’ special needs. This suggests that effective implementation of inclusive higher education must be supported by an effective service center for those who have disabilities, a support network of professionals, and an administrative support system for teachers and students.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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