Are You In or Out? Canadian Students Who Register for Disability-Related Services in Junior/Community Colleges versus Those Who Do Not
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Junior/community colleges tend to enroll more students with disabilities than four-year colleges. Therefore, knowing about the nature of students’ disabilities and about which students register for campus disability-related services is important. Here, we report on a random sample of 1387 Canadian junior/community college students, 17% of whom self-reported a disability. The most common disabilities reported, in rank order, were learning disability with or without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (LD/ADHD), mental illness, chronic health problems, hearing impairments, and visual impairments. Only 44% of students with self-reported disabilities indicated registering for campus disability-related services. Prominent among those who had not done so were students with mental illness and students with chronic medical conditions. When we split students into those with only LD versus those with only ADHD, we found that students with LD were quite likely to register for services, whereas those with ADHD were not. In general, students with disabilities were under-represented in the sciences, although we found no relationship between students’ disabilities and their programs of study. The same was true of students who had and those who had not registered for campus disability-related services. We speculate on why students with specific disabilities do not register for disability-related services. "@eng
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".