Advocacy and Allyship Matters: Well-being Among University Students With Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important to understand factors that optimize the experiences of post-secondary students with disabilities. Although limited research has examined the factors related to their subjective well-being, some students with disabilities report lower well-being and greater loneliness than their counterparts. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the association between self-advocacy and subjective well-being, and whether self-compassion moderates this relationship, and the association between allyship and loneliness, and whether perceived organizational support moderates this relationship. In this study, 149 student participants, all of whom identified as having a disability, responded to an online questionnaire. While self-advocacy and self-compassion were both associated with well-being, self-compassion did not moderate the relationship. Similarly, while allyship and organizational support were associated with loneliness, organizational support did not moderate the relationship. This study contributes to the literature by identifying factors that may influence the well-being of students with disabilities within post-secondary environments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".