What I Sense, How I Feel: The Classroom Sensory Environment from the Perspective of Children with Sensory Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, co-designed with educational professionals, uniquely investigated how twenty-three primary school children identified as having sensory needs perceive their classroom sensory environment. It adopted a needs-based, transdiagnostic approach and covered seven senses. Applying framework analysis on semi-structured interviews, it uncovered the biological, psychological and social factors underlying children’s response to sensory input, and its perceived effects on learning. In particular, results emphasised the importance of the meaning, memories and social dynamics attached to sensory input, which are not systematically considered in conceptual frameworks of sensory processing. Responses to sensory input were therefore not characterised in absolute terms but were dependent on the specific time, space and individuals involved. The thematic map generated from this study can be used as a reflexive framework to support collective discussions (which may involve researchers, education professionals, families and children) on the factors influencing children’s response to sensory input in a classroom environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".