Disability Barriers in Academia: An Analysis of Disability Accommodation Policies for Faculty at Canadian Universities
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
This article examines disability accommodation policies for faculty at 42 Canadian universities. Although universities in Canada are legally required to accommodate disabled employees, fewer than half of all universities have a written disability accommodation policy available. The search for disability accommodation policies revealed that there is a lack of consistency in policy implementation as well as language and content. The analysis revealed that disability accommodation policies contain overtly medical language and provisions that work to isolate disabled faculty by reinforcing the notion of competency as able-bodiedness and emphasizing the entanglement between disability, health and medicine. This article encourages universities to acknowledge their role in establishing accessible and inclusive workplaces and concludes with recommendations aimed at addressing some of the gaps and inconsistencies in disability accommodation policies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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