Disabled Students in Health and Social Services Fieldwork: Perceptions of Canadian Fieldwork Educators and Academic Coordinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensuring equitable access to professional education programs for learners who need accommodations is distinctly challenging when education moves beyond the classroom into clinical or fieldwork sites. Fieldwork educators and university academic coordinators who arrange fieldwork placements work with university accessibility services and students to arrange required accommodations, while preserving confidentiality, maintaining high learning standards, and ensuring attainment of professional competencies. This work is complicated by time pressures and heavy caseloads in fieldwork settings. Here we report on a subset of data from a cross-Canada online survey of fieldwork educators (n = 233) and academic coordinators (n = 54) in 10 health and social service professions. Using descriptive statistics, we analyze responses to two question series concerning perceptions of the capacity of disabled students to attain professional competencies, and overall perceptions of students who need accommodations. Respondents showed most concern about competency attainment for learners with cognitive or learning disabilities, followed by neurological and mental health issues. Thematic analysis of open-ended comments suggests doubt regarding the ability of institutional fieldwork sites to adequately implement accommodations. In their perception of learners who need accommodations, academic coordinators were somewhat more negative than fieldwork educators, in particular seeing students who need accommodations as a potential burden that could harm placement relationships with fieldwork sites. They tended to indicate that fieldwork success depended on student insight and self-advocacy. Struggles faced by disabled students in health and social service professions appear to be occasioned not only by disabling systems and institutions, but also by perceptions that they may have diminished competence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".