Invisible disabilities: perceptions of academic accommodations in post-secondary institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning disabilities (LD) are disabilities that are protected under Memorial University of Newfoundland’s disability policy. LD can be defined as a neurodevelopmental disorder resulting in deficits in reading, written word and expression, spelling, and mathematical reasoning that are not attributable to other disorders (American Psychological Association [APA], 2013). The scope of this study was to determine the perceptions of accommodations made for students with learning disabilities by their peers without learning disabilities. Three hypotheses were made: (1) Students will perceive an accommodation more positively when they are aware of the student’s disability; (2) individuals will perceive accommodated students who have not disclosed having a LD as undeserving of the grades they receive; and (3) students who have experience with an individual with a LD perceive examination accommodations more positively. A series of independent-measures t-tests, chi-squared analyses, and two-factor independent-measures ANOVAs were conducted on the data collected. Significant results were found regarding hypotheses (1) and (2); however, no significant results were found regarding hypothesis (3). Implications of the findings are discussed with regards to increasing students’ acceptance of accommodations through contact interventions and full disclosure of students’ disabilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".