MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409013031 · doi:10.61838/kman.prien.3.1.3

Identifying the Cognitive and Emotional Components of Self-Advocacy in Exceptional Learners

2025· article· en· W4409013031 on OpenAlexaff
Wioleta Karna, Karina Batthyány

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Psychological Research in Individuals with Exceptional Needs · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionSelf-advocacySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to identify the cognitive and emotional components of self-advocacy in exceptional learners and examine the external factors that influence their ability to advocate for themselves in educational settings. A qualitative research design was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews with 29 exceptional learners recruited through online platforms. Theoretical saturation was reached, ensuring comprehensive data collection. NVivo software was used to conduct thematic analysis, identifying key cognitive and emotional factors related to self-advocacy. Participants shared their experiences regarding metacognitive awareness, decision-making, emotional regulation, and external support systems, providing rich qualitative data for analysis. The results indicated that self-advocacy among exceptional learners is shaped by cognitive competencies, including metacognition, decision-making, and information-seeking behaviors, as well as emotional factors such as self-efficacy, resilience, and emotional regulation. Participants who demonstrated strong metacognitive strategies and confidence were more effective self-advocates, whereas those facing anxiety or low self-efficacy struggled to assert their needs. External factors, such as educator support, family involvement, and institutional policies, played a critical role in shaping advocacy experiences. Online networks and digital advocacy resources were identified as valuable tools for enhancing self-advocacy skills. However, institutional barriers, including bureaucratic challenges and lack of awareness among educators, posed significant obstacles for learners. The study highlights the complexity of self-advocacy in exceptional learners, emphasizing the interplay between cognitive awareness, emotional resilience, and external support structures. Enhancing self-advocacy skills requires targeted interventions, including advocacy training, institutional support, and digital resource accessibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Psychological Research in Individuals with Exceptional NeedsSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207