Work-In-Progress Investigation on Academic Accommodations: Needs and Barriers for Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adopting an inductive, exploratory approach, a study is being conducted for all students at the University of Prince Edward Island to document the met and unmet academic accommodation needs of the student body, as well as the barriers to receiving support.Four participant groups are of interest: (1) students without accessibility needs, students with accessibility needs who: (2) are registered with the university's Accessibility Services office, (3) are in the process of registering, and (4) have not tried to register.In particular, this study aims to identify the population of students who would benefit from academic accommodation but who have not been registered for support.Many reasons could cause this: stigma surrounding disability either from peers or instructors, lack of previous documentation for their disability, high financial or time requirements for acquiring formal documentation, or the perception that offered academic accommodations are not sufficient for fulfilling needs, among others.Much of the current literature on academic accommodations for invisible disabilities focuses on the need for Universal Design in curriculum creation, as well as the stigma surrounding self-declaration of said disabilities.This work-in-progress paper provides literature on academic accommodations to document the need for such a study.Additionally, using mixed-method quantitative and qualitative analyses, preliminary results indicate 25% of participants do not feel they have an advocate, 62% believe there is a negative perception towards those who receive academic accommodations from teachers and instructors, and on the whole, needs are being met.Barriers include the necessity for diagnosis or psychological evaluation for certain conditions, unsupportive instructors, and test accommodations requiring a week's notice.
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 | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".