Academic Accessibility: A Case Study of Carleton University, 1942 - 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the definition of accessibility?Does it have one that covers all perspectives?This thesis was completed in order to analyze how Carleton University, in particular, has viewed accessibility during its history, particularly from a physically disabled perspective.It will do so using a Disability Studies perspective.In addition, it will use two theoretical perspectives of disability, the medical and social models.They will be used to demonstrate how Carleton University has gone about building not only its physical infrastructure but also policy for its intellectual infrastructure under influence of the medical model.This is accomplished in a number of different ways.It first looks at how Carleton built its reputation of being one of Canada's most accessible post-secondary institutions.To understand this a number of different sources were put to use.Along with standard secondary sources, such as books and journal articles, this thesis also contains a series of interviews, an accessibility audit, and personal vignettes.These interviews and vignettes are excellent tools to demonstrate how Carleton has shifted its focus of accessibility away from physical and towards cognitive, and sometimes invisible, disabilities.iii 1 A.J. Withers, Disability Politics and Theory (Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood, 2012), 31 and 86-89. 2 Withers, Disability Politics, 86-89.3 For this reason, programs at Carleton such as the Attendant Services Program, which assists physically disabled Carleton University students to live on campus with personal support available 24-hrs a day, seven days a week, is not discussed.See also: "History," Attendant Services Program, Carleton University, last modified 2019, https://carleton.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".