An Exploration of Partnerships Between Disability Service Units and Academic Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The University of Saskatchewan’s University Library has been partnering with its institution’s Disability Services unit for almost twenty-five years to provide space and equipment for students with disabilities in some of its library locations. This partnership has grown from piloting a Kurzweil reader, to the development of multiple assistive technology and exam writing rooms, to the recent creation of a multi-purpose room. These library spaces complement spaces Disability Services has within its own office suite and reflect the growth in the number of students registered with them, a widening spectrum of disabilities, and a collaborative desire to make disability services and resources more accessible. A literature scan revealed a small number of articles about partnerships, many of which were in response to legislation. A survey directed at North American post-secondary institutions’ Disability Services employees surfaced further information about partnerships, but did not reveal any common best practices. With the increase in the number of students with disabilities attending academic institutions and a changing landscape of what is defined as a disability, how and how well academic libraries and Disability Services units are partnering to respond to these changes appears to require further exploration and assessment.
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 | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".