Challenges, Practices, and Preferences of Postsecondary Accessibility Service Providers in Alberta When Implementing Accommodations for Invisible Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the last few decades have seen an improvement in postsecondary opportunities for students with invisible disabilities in Alberta, service providers at postsecondary institutions continue to struggle to ensure they provide reasonable accommodations in a timely manner. Research questions explored the current practices and challenges of postsecondary accessibility services providers in Alberta, Canada, and their preferences for verification documentation for students requesting accommodations for invisible disabilities. The conceptual framework was based upon the medical and social models of disability, as well as the emerging justice theory of disability. Data were collected via semistructured interviews with 13 participants. A constant comparative method was used for coding interview data, which led to themes reflecting participants’ need for clarity and consistency and participants’ concerns about students and their transition from K-12 or transfer, the failure of the Alberta Human Rights Legislation to clarify terms, the limited resources for staffing and training, and their own struggles to overcome challenges. Findings indicated that while all participants wished to have documentation, they would prefer select components from each of the three models of disability. The findings from this study may lead to positive social change through the review and revision of current practices to better provide consistent access to services for students with disabilities, to accomplish an integral change, and to help ease the transition process for students from secondary to postsecondary education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".