Impacts of an Inclusive Education Program for Adults with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Within a Postsecondary Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades, postsecondary institutions in Canada and globally have created programs to include persons with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD) in higher education. These programs vary in their scope but generally aim to provide an inclusive opportunity for persons with IDD to attend postsecondary education alongside their same-aged peers. This research study focused on one program at a university in Southern Ontario that has been providing an inclusive campus experience for over 25 years. The study was guided by the research question, “What are the impacts realized by former program participants, their parents/caregivers, former student volunteers, and university partners from involvement with an inclusive education program within a postsecondary environment”? Interview data were derived from 17 semi-structured interviews across four stakeholder groups and were examined using thematic analyses. Findings indicated three major areas of impact: friendship, growth, and belonging. Implications describe steps for broader implementation and a call-to-action for postsecondary institutions to push for greater inclusivity of persons with IDD within higher 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".