Exclusionary Inclusion?: The Realities of Academic Accommodation at University for Students with Invisible Physical Chronic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following thesis is a case study that discusses the various impacts of academic accommodations for undergraduate students who self-identify as having invisible physical chronic conditions (IPCCs).This research draws on qualitative data from interviews with undergraduate students and academic accommodation centre staff.Using a symbolic interactionist perspective, I explore why students who identify as having IPCCs either use, or do not seek out, academic accommodations.I investigate how students' identities are impacted, arguing that there is negative impact on identity for some students, particularly vis-a-vis how they are viewed within the University community.The research further uncovers the current academic accommodations system's challenges, and opportunities for positive change in terms of improving the access and experience of academic accommodations for students.The research discusses the concept of the "continuous assessment" model as an alternate design and practice of academic accommodation that arguably would benefit all post-secondary 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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".