Equal Access? Comparing Accommodation and Treatment Experiences of Racialized University Students with Attention Problems and Their White Peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University students who have difficulty with attention problems, including but not limited to those with ADHD, may struggle to focus, organize, and manage their education independently at the postsecondary level. This study examined the intersectional experience of racialized students with attention problems and their access to academic support services at two Canadian universities. Racialized participants (n=198) were compared with White participants (n=120). The goal was to investigate the relations between ADHD symptoms/probable diagnoses, academic difficulties, and access to medication and accommodation supports. Although the results revealed a similar occurrence of ADHD symptoms, previous diagnoses of ADHD, and academic difficulties across the groups, treatment and accommodation were not equal. Specifically, racialized students reported fewer prescriptions for stimulants and fewer academic accommodations through the universities’ disability services offices. Overall, these findings suggest that although there are not substantial differences in need, racialized students are not receiving the same level of support as their White peers. Further research is recommended as well as changes to practice guidelines such that more support and better access to services for individuals from historically underserved groups will be provided.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".