Self-advocacy in post-secondary education: the central role of structural limitations and relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing number of students with mental health challenges attending post-secondary education. Such students encounter a number of barriers to accessibility. In response to this, students are often encouraged to self-advocate for supports. In this study, we sought to understand how self-advocacy is experienced by students with mental health challenges attending university. We conducted a World Café with 21 current and former university students with mental health challenges. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. We identified two themes: 1) the limited nature of the structural context within which students self-advocate (i.e. support structures are invisible, inadequate, exclusionary, and/or dehumanizing) and 2) the inherently relational context of self-advocacy (i.e. the result of self-advocacy depends on the actions of a relational partner). Overall, our findings problematize self-advocacy narratives as an institutional tool to shift blame onto the individual and de-emphasize the importance of institutional responsibility for disability accessibility.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".