University Students' Perceptions of Learning Disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Special education has been widely explored as the prevalence of learning disabilities (LD) has become extremely relevant (Statistics Canada, 2016). Therefore, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of the terminology special education and inclusive education, to promote further awareness of how it can be impactful to students with LDs learning. Special education exists to support individuals with LDs who benefit from specialized learning plans, to help facilitate and enhance their learning (Street, 2004). The essence of inclusive education is to ensure that diversity is supported and celebrated by each unique learner (UNESCO, 2008). An LD can be referred to as a group of heterogeneous disorders which may impact an individual's organization skills, retention, comprehension, or use of verbal and non-verbal information (Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, 2016). This qualitative narrative inquiry approach investigated how students within Southern Ontario with a learning disability diagnosis story and perceive their learning and their access to support at the university level. Semi-structured interviews were implemented to gather meaningful data (van den Hoonaard, 2018). The results revealed the challenges that participants faced due to their LDs, such as stigmas associated with LDs and the obstacles they overcame while receiving accommodations. To conclude, policies and regulations need to be implemented to not only help educate faculty regarding accommodations but also find ways to enhance the services provided to students.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it