An Exploration of Partnerships Between Disability Service Units and Academic Libraries
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it