A scoping review of supports on college and university campuses for autistic post-secondary students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the demand to better address the principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in higher education, research into both barriers and promising practices to support autistic students on post-secondary campuses has advanced significantly in the last decade. The objective of this scoping review is to identify, map, and characterize literature that enumerates and describes supports for autistic post-secondary students. This scoping review was limited to peer-reviewed research published between January 2012 and May 2022, in these databases: Web of Science, PsycINFO, Medline, EMBASE, ERIC, Social Work Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and EMCARE. The review aligns to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and includes consultation with an expert panel made up of the Autistic Community Partners–four autistic individuals with postsecondary experience who acted as co-researchers. Literature on creating accessible campuses were mapped in three ways: (1) through the four domains of the PASS Taxonomy; (2) ten support categories characterizing types of supports, and (3) nine emergent themes, based on autistic experiences on support and campus navigation, were inductively and iteratively coded throughout process. This review summarizes both areas that have been researched and under-studied areas in the literature that act as contributors or challenges for autistic students on postsecondary campuses. It was also the first scoping review, to our knowledge, to integrate lived experience within the methods and results analysis to describe the current state of the evidence on post-secondary campuses. Mapping the literature in known and emerging categories indicated that broad categories of support are experienced variably by autistic students. Findings provide multiple avenues for future research.
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 | 0.025 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".