Environmental Scan of Neurodiversity Affirming Approaches in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing presence of neurodivergent students in higher education, there is a crucial need for neuro-affirming approaches that move beyond individual, deficit-based models of support. Using an environmental scan, we examine neuro-affirming practices and resources through educational databases and grey literature warranting 179 sources. Articles were categorized and thematized by target audience and thematically. Six key themes for service providers were identified including; basics of neurodiversity, disclosure, accessing support, Universal Design for Learning, community belonging, and cripping academia. Three themes arose for the resources for students including basics of neurodiversity, accessing support, and disclosures. The environmental scan underscores the importance of inclusive, strengths-based approaches in higher education that require systemic changes and understanding.
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 | 0.031 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".