A Systematic Review of Challenges Faced by Students with Disabilities in Higher Education
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
Background: Students with disabilities often encounter multiple barriers in accessing and succeeding in higher education. These challenges include physical inaccessibility, lack of academic support and social exclusion. Summary: This systematic research attempts to identify important hurdles to higher education for students with disabilities, as well as examine the lack of accessibility and assistance. It also looks at publishing patterns, emphasising key publications, authors, nations and organisations in the subject. Methods: The data was collected from Scopus and the Web of Science database and was analysed through a bibliometric approach with R software. The results indicated that students with disabilities in higher education encounter numerous challenges, which this study categorised into 14 major themes. Key message: This article offers recommendations for creating an inclusive educational environment in which students with disabilities are treated fairly and given equal access to learning opportunities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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