Not Overly Accessible: Accessibility Services at Universities Across Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with disabilities face accessibility challenges in higher education. Consequently, universities generally provide accessibility services that provide support and information to those who need it. However, it is not clear what services and information Canadian universities provide, and whether their accessibility websites are themselves accessible. Whether information about accessibility services and resources (e.g., note taking, funding) was present on accessibility websites was assessed among 86 Canadian universities. In addition, the accessibility services websites themselves were assessed for meeting international standards of accessibility. Results suggest that larger universities generally provide more information about services and resources, but there is variability and a lack of consistency, with some services rarely mentioned. The websites themselves have more errors that would impact users with accessibility issues and less elements designed specifically for accessibility than the websites of common large companies and the Canadian Government. The accessibility websites of Canadian universities are generally not as accessible as they could be for those who are likely to need them most.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it