An intersectional analysis of students with disabilities’ exam experiences
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
This study examined how Australian students with disabilities’ intersecting identity positions shaped and were shaped by their exam experiences. We conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve university students registered with disability services and sharing additional minoritised identities. These were analysed to explore structural, political, and representational intersectionality. Thinking with theory, we illustrated how students’ identities intersected to undermine offered accommodations’ effectiveness. Structurally, students with multiple minoritised identities struggled to prove exam impacts and gain equitable adjustments. Representational intersectionality highlighted how self-representations and/or concerns about others’ views of them undermined exam help-seeking. Political intersectionality analysis foregrounded how policy only recognised and supported some identities. Our analysis highlighted the complexity of students with disabilities’ identities; current single-axis, accommodations-based systems seldom created equitable exam experiences. Where possible, exam flexibility should be inbuilt, reducing the need for accommodations. Assessment policy must also allow staff agency to develop solutions with students that lead to greater equity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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