Inclusion in Fieldwork: Academic Fieldwork Coordinators’ Perspectives on Accommodating Disabled Occupational Therapy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Fieldwork is essential in postsecondary health professions programs and can present challenges for disabled students. Fieldwork coordinators, responsible for student placements, play a pivotal role in supporting disabled students. However, limited research exists regarding the experiences of these coordinators in accommodating students with disabilities. Purpose. This mixed methods study aims to understand the perspectives of academic fieldwork coordinators in occupational therapy programs, focusing on their practices to support disabled students and promote a sense of inclusion. Method. Using a mixed methods approach, fifteen academic fieldwork coordinators completed a quantitative survey followed by in-depth semistructured interviews with five coordinators. Results. Participants’ experiences presented two main themes. First, academic fieldwork coordinators constantly navigated tensions with institutional norms regarding fieldwork. Second, academic fieldwork coordinators manage fieldwork accommodations within ever-changing human dynamics and social norms, including students’ decisions about disclosure. Despite these gaps, the participants emphasized opportunities for enhancing and refining occupational therapy programs by addressing challenges to improve inclusivity for students with disabilities. Conclusion. Addressing these accessibility issues can contribute to the overall improvement of educational practices, fostering a more inclusive learning environment. Examination of the institution's infrastructure, collaboration with disabled individuals, and greater personnel training are key in promoting a more inclusive and supportive environment for both academic fieldwork coordinators and disabled students.
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 | 0.029 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".