MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122425769 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0306

A survey of the number of legally blind university physics students in Canada during 2003–2013

2014· article· en· W3122425769 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationMedical educationPsychologyMathematics educationLibrary scienceMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last few years, video assistive apparatus has become available at an accessible price that will allow students who have limited vision to participate almost fully in many laboratory courses at university. This paper presents a survey of the number of legally blind university physics students in Canada for the period 2003 to 2013. It will act as a benchmark to measure the effectiveness, in laboratory courses, of recent legislation mandating the provision of assistive devices in educational institutions. The survey was sent to all 52 physics departments at institutions in Canada that grant physics degrees, with all but one of the departments replying. None knew of any legally blind physicists practising in Canada. The only legally blind physics students reported were one partially sighted student who was awarded a Ph.D. in 2001, and one currently at Trent University. The survey results show that of the 12.5% of blind students who hold university degrees in Canada, very few of them are in physics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it