The voices of students with learning disabilities: An untold story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the benefit for students with learning disabilities of attending a small Canadian University. The research investigated the importance of an extensive social network in establishing a stable self-concept and high self-esteem, which has been shown to have a large impact on academic success. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with students with learning disabilities seeking assistance at Acadia University's Resource Centre. An employee of the Resource Centre was also interviewed. The results indicated that, overall, students felt that they benefited by attending Acadia University. Students felt Acadia provided a sense of community, yet a specific community was lacking for students with learning disabilities. Based on the findings of the interviews and an extensive review of the literature, policy changes and recommendations are provided. The focus of these policy suggestions is to enhance the learning environment for students with learning disabilities, while establishing a community for students with learning disabilities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".