Disability, the Invisible Handcuff: Challenges Faced by Learners with Disabilities in Institutions of Higher Education in Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine challenges faced by learners with disabilities in institutions of higher learning. The research adopted a qualitative approach using a sample of 32 disabled persons in four provinces in Zimbabwe. Data were collected through unstructured in-depth interviews. The results of the study indicate that the term “disability” is a “disabling word” that had limited people with disability to make progress in their lives. Despite their effort to live positively, disabled persons suffer a glut of challenges, which include stigmatization, social exclusion and inaccessibility of facilities and failure to cope with fast moving technology. Disability is used as a ‘dividing curtain’ between those with “disabilities” and those without.”The term has promoted the “them and us dichotomy”. Many people with disabilities are called by nature of their disability instead of their real names especially the visually impaired and physically challenged. This affects people with disability in education, employment arena and their interaction with the wider society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".