Reconceptualizing Self-Advocacy and Accessibility Labour in Post-Secondary Education for Blind and Partially Sighted Learners: A Participatory Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevailing institutional expectation that blind and partially sighted students in post-secondary education will need to repeatedly self-advocate to obtain equitable and timely access to course learning materials is fatiguing, stressful, and othering. The time and resources that students devote to self-advocacy represents unrecognized labour that is not typically expected of non-disabled peers. This unrecompensed accessibility labour and its consequences are central to the rationale for the participatory framework proposed in this paper, recognizing that equitable access depends, in part, on mitigating the requirement that students engage in accessibility labour to realize their right to an inclusive post-secondary education. Dyads of blind and partially sighted accessibility professionals and course instructors will work through an iterative process to upgrade instructors’ workflows for creating and curating accessible learning materials. An anticipated outcome of this facilitation process is that learning materials assigned by participating instructors will meet an increasing proportion of students’ access requirements, and as a result, progressively mitigate the accessibility labour required to gain equitable access to course content.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".